Well Ed, this Saturday I took my friends Doberman pup to training meeting. (She drowe me crazy :all over the place and nowhere to be found) I did put the oprong on her and I just prayed that I wont kill her with it or something.
She pulled once twice and than she got all confused and for the firs time in a long time her look was: ok i am listening now.
Thanks.. I hope I learn with her...
I did only couple of exercises and put her back in a crate.
I will do my best with it.. I did not pulled nor did anything harmfull to her.. I also was pretty unsure about myself..
I agree that I have a lot to learn... but my first try was good.. I am proud of us <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />.

Jeff,
I see you've been lurking since Sept, and this was your first post. Two thumbs up!
T

Ed wrote: "In my opinion its a dis-service to allow what I consider abusive training methods to be touted 'as the correct way to use e-collars.' "

Ed, you're article certainly wasn't about me but this bit of your post certainly was aimed directly at me. In my response to your article I congratulated you on being big enough to allow people who disagree with you to post on your forum. It now looks as if that was a bit premature.

One of the most vile criticisms that someone can level towards a dog trainer is that the tool or method that he uses is abusive, as you've done with me. Since you've never seen me train any dogs and since you've probably never even seen any dogs that I've trained it's completely out of place for you to make such a statement. Perhaps "escape training" as you use the term is abusive. But as I do the work, it's not, not by any stretch of anyone's imagination. It's nearly identical with the Ecollar work that's done by the Dobbs Training Center, Martin Deely, LAPD, LASD, the US Secret Service, Utah State Police K-9 School and hundreds, if not thousands, more. Of nearly 600 posts on this forum, (and that doesn't include the hundreds on the "old" forum) most of them about Ecollars, this is the first time that anyone has said that they consider what I do to be "abusive." I expected better from you.

Across the country people use the same terms differently, I'll suggest that's what's at the bottom of our difference in the use of the terms "escape" and "avoidance" training. As you use them, Ed, they're the same. In your article you mention the defining book of Ecollar terms, by Daniel Tortora. Then you proceed to say that "escape" and "avoidance" are the same thing. Tortora doesn't think so, neither do I, and neither do the vast majority of those who are fluent in Ecollars. "Escape" and "avoidance" as those terms are used in Ecollars are vastly different from one another and different from the way that you use them.

You keep calling my methods "old school" when in fact the leash and collar were used for centuries before Ecollars came along. If anything is "old school," it's the leash and collar. There's nothing wrong with being "old school," except that, to you, the term is pejorative. The technique used to "interrupt a dog's breathing" has been done far longer than either of us have been around by knowledgeable trainers who work with aggressive or dominant dogs everywhere.

I've never claimed to have invented escape training, something that you've alluded to in a post to someone else. There's nothing new about it. It's one thing that's working when a dog learns not to display aggression after having his breathing "interrupted" as you advocate. He "escapes" the discomfort by stopping that action. He "avoids" it in the future by not showing aggression again. Those are two different things that a dog learns. One is occurring during the learning phase and the other is occurring after the learning has occurred. That's how Tortora defines the terms and how I do as well. They're clearly not the same.

I've done over nearly thirty seminars around the US and in Europe. I've appeared before hundreds of people, many of them experienced handlers and trainers and no one who's seen the work has ever called it "abusive."

Thanks Judith for talking about what you've seen, rather than some people, who "assume" how something is done and what its effects are. Judith's point was that my methods are not, in spite of your comments, abusive. She's seen it, you haven't. That's all she was talking about, not the rest of your article.

Hundreds of people have let me put Ecollars on their dogs at seminars and during private training sessions because my reputation as a fair and just trainer and as humane and gentle is widely known. I'm not recently "born again," as some people. Many of the more experienced trainers here, many of them your moderators, have habitually referred people to me and my website when questions about Ecollars have arisen. They didn't seem to find my methods abusive and neither did you until now. Nearly 600 posts on your forum and only a few weeks ago did I discover that you disagreed with how I use the tool. That's fine and anyone is free to disagree, doesn't bother me in the slightest. But anyone who calls my methods "abusive" as you've done is either badly informed or uninformed. It's ignorant to call a method or tool "abusive." Abuse isn't inherent in a tool or a method, it's all in how it's used.


Ed's comments:

Lou - all this from the guy who writes on his web site ( http://www.loucastle.com/sit.htm)in an article on training a dog to sit " What’s happening is that the dog has come to understand what’s expected of him and is trying to shut off the stimulation a little faster. CONGRATULATIONS! You’ve just stepped into “escape training” which is just about as close to magic as we get in dog training! "



The point you miss is that I wrote "I have never met you." In addition I said that "this is not about Lou Castle" - its about ESCAPE TRAINING - which just happens to be the method you chose to use.

As far as I am concerned - escape training is old school training. Maybe abusive is the wrong word - OLD SCHOOL CERTAINLY IS NOT. Lou if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck - maybe a magic duck.

You are right - I chose to keep my mouth shut about ESCAPE TRAINING - for 574 posts - and Lou it was not easy and those days are over.

The last time I looked I have never seen anywhere that the organizations you mentions (Dobbs Training Center, Martin Deely (never hgeard of him), LAPD, LASD, the US Secret Service, Utah State Police K-9 School) were known as experts in the field of e-collar training. Maybe your experts - not mine.

The fact is Jim Dobbs (as nice as he is) was one of the people who promoted escape training in this country.

I remember when Jim (with a serious face) said that he felt that he could train a Schutzhund dogs to bite a sleeve through Escape training. Basically saying that the dog would be stemmed (stim) until he is got on the sleeve. (boy I would liike to have seen that grip)

I have that idea right up there with back tieing a dog to a fence and beating the crap out of him until he bites. That was how things were done back in the 50's- remmber th 50's Lou? I do!!

Dont put words in my mouth - I never heard of David Tortora until you wrote this post. So dont tell me that I mention his book in my article - WHAT BOOK? With this said if he has a book that contains the concepts I wrote about I would probably say he is a pretty good dog trainer.

I made it very clear that you did not invent escape training. The fact is EAR PINCHES, TOE PINCHES were used as escape training until e-collars came along. I am sure you are familiar with this.

Lou - you never read what I said about dominant dog collars - why does this not surprise me - the dogs are never corrected without first getting a voice correction of "NO" and there is a space in time for them to comply. If they respond to a voice correction of "NO- nothing happens.

This is different than escape training where they get stimulation with NO forwarning until they comply. So my advise is to read first Lou and then ask yourself if there is a possibility that you may learn something. But then you have blinders on.

This all comes from the guy who writes on his web site that escape training is MAGIC. Right Lou - Magic. Sorry I call it old school training and it works for you because you fall into the catagory of a proffesional trainer where time is money. Read my philosophy on dog trainers and you will see exactly why I dont recommend people send their dogs to most professional trainers.

Lou,

As you know, I've been following your and Ed's discussions (debate?) on e-collar training for some time. You've both done an excellent job of defending your ideas. The word "abuse" is maybe too strong, but I do see where Ed is coming from. Perhaps I would modify Ed's comment to say that escape training can easily be abusive in the wrong hands. The problem that I've had in accepting escape training is that it requires a very skillful handler to pull off, even with a mature, well-grounded dog (pun intended). For that reason, I've come to believe that Ed's methods are the correct ones for the vast majority of the people visiting his site, including myself. From reading your posts and articles, I actually think you'd agree with that.

My question to you, then, is do you have any issues with Ed's method?

Let me add that the word "abuse" is a loaded one, since it typically implies intent, which we know is not what Ed is saying. In reality, of course, abuse can be unintentional, and that is what I'm referring to in my post.

People without common sense, can and will abuse any method. Idiots are everywhere!

True, but even really smart people can have trouble with escape training since it requires absolute precision timing to get the dog to figure out what's going on. Otherwise, the dog's just wandering around getting stimmed/stemmed. That's where the "abuse" comes in - the fact that the dog's getting punished before it's figured out what's going on - and it's indeed an "old school" philosophy of training.

I don't think that Lou or other skilled trainers are abusive in any way with this training, but when I tried it myself, the label applied <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> .

I just wanted to jump in here for just a few moments. I think the greatest problem may be the use of the terms and the ideas behind them. Like many things we fight over the terms and may be looking at the same exact behaviors and in fact may even agree with the method and outcome even if we fight over the terms used. It’s no different than terms like prey, fight, defense etc.

In terms of the point at hand, I train ecollars almost exactly like Lou.. I’ve also taught with many of the same trainers/depts. he has. I’ve trained with LAPD, LASO, LV Metro, US Secret Service and numerous others that for the most part are all teaching what is now being call “abusive escape” training. I’ve NEVER seen any of these depts. do anything abusive, nor would I expect it. I’ve never even seen one of their dogs vocalize let alone be abused. In fact they are some of the most advanced, pro-active and experienced K-9 Units in the country. Their dogs all search well, don’t cling to handlers, are not shut down, are not fearful or any of the other behaviors that come from poor/abusive training with a ecollar or any other tool.

In Lou’s defense, I’ve taught I think 6 different seminars where we were both invited instructors. Mind you we did not “book” them, we just happen to both be invited to the same venue. I’ve NEVER seen Lou do anything close to what anyone could call abusive. His methods are fair, clear to the dogs and handlers. He puts the working ability of the dogs ahead of anything else. He uses the lowest stim levels the dog can respond to and never just stims a dog to get a reaction. If you don’t agree with the idea of what you consider “escape” training that’s fine and well, everyone has their own likes and dislikes. To say that Lou’s methods are abusive are in my opinion are off base.

Josh - you are right - maybe abusive is the wrong word to use - OLD SCHOOL is better. In mymopinion there are better more effective ways that new handlers and trainers can learn and use.