Studies on dog behavior!

[Chip]

I think he explained definitions of "fight" and the fact that we aren't home to watch the animal 24/7 pretty well. About 6 pages back.

 

[kathylove]

I think part of the reasoning of the e - collar is so that the dog doesn't associate the effect with the owner. For example, if it is to teach yard boundaries, he learns that he gets the unpleasant effect even when the owner is far away. So he hopefully learns to stay in the yard, even though he knows his owner can't run after him and catch him to MAKE him stay.

 

[Hypancistrus]

Why are we even engaging in this pissing contest??

Drizz is getting a Viszla and is going to train the dog one way. I'm sure it will be a great dog and everything will work out!

Micahel has a German Shepherd and trained it another way. I'm sure it's a lovely dog and everything has worked out for him.

This is a forum for the exchange of information. That's all. Michael posted info, Drizz posted info of another sort. I read Michael's articles and found them quite interesting. We're all free to choose what we believe without the personal attacks, are we not? If one doesn't like what the other is saying, change screens? Walk away? :shrugs:

This is just crazy.....

Edit to add: I did not read the other post beyond squeeing over the cuteness of the pups, but Michael, the pup will belong to Drizz. If he is training using a method you disaprove of, that's his business. You are always welcome to say "I don't use that method because X" and insert a reason, but he is under no obligation and is perfectly within his rights to train his dog any way he wants. It's HIS dog. HIS personal liberty with something he owns, regardless of your feelings on it.

 

[Emily1188]

Why are we even engaging in this pissing contest??

Drizz is getting a Viszla and is going to train the dog one way. I'm sure it will be a great dog and everything will work out!

Micahel has a German Shepherd and trained it another way. I'm sure it's a lovely dog and everything has worked out for him.

What she said.

It's tiresome, the constant conversion tactics by the positive only movement. *sigh*

 

[Drizzt80]

Why are we even engaging in this pissing contest??

Too much coffee?!?! :roflmao:


D80

 

[Michael823]

"Fight" doesn't necessarily mean aggression. Michael refuses to acknowledge that, which is fine.

Yeah... Well... Geez... Okay! Really makes zero sense to me, and doesn't reflect your initial post in any way, but I guess it's easier than than retracting calling me a liar.

Michael has made another assumption that fight means drop down drag out tooth and nail snarling barking fight, just like they assumed that by "rod" I meant I was going to beat my dog(s) with a piece of metal until they respond, etc. . . .

Sorry for my assumption, perhaps "using the rod', and "fight" mean something different in Klingon.

He doesn't reward the others with treats, cookies or cheese when they do something correct...he uses body language and physical contact when they do something he does not approve of.

PS. We use e-collars and bark collars to train our dogs...there goes any credibility I had for the above statement!

Well maybe we can draw a correlation to the use of negative reinforcement training, and the dogs also establishing roles with physical contact.

I couldn't agree more. We always had 2 dogs in our house growing up and they figured out the hierarchy between them without fights. it always seemed to be the one who was in the home first, but not always. It is very possible to have more then one dog in a home without fights ever breaking out. I've witnessed it many times over, over the years.

Exactly! The initial charge was that my two German Shepherds must have fought at some point, and it is simply not true, and is extremely bias towards the breed in general.
There is no established hierarchy between them. Ciana is more youthful, and a little more bold, so she comes across as being higher up on the ladder. But Nakita lived with Ciana for a couple of years, and was always the guiding example for Ciana to follow. She is older, and way more happy go lucky, but certainly not lower rank in the hierarchy.
They both have a very established relationship, similar to an older and younger sibling. Ciana will try to gain leverage when playing, and usually is more successful due to her superior athleticism and drive. But when the two of them are together, Ciana watches Nakita's every move, and behaves more appropriately around her. As with Nakita, who at times (especially at our house) follows Ciana's lead.
None of it is done through physical domination, it is all through body language, and observing the positive reward the other gets when properly behaving. This is the exact result of not using negative reinforcement on either, because neither have learned that it is an appropriate way to get what they want, which is praise and fun physical activity.

Edit to add: I did not read the other post beyond squeeing over the cuteness of the pups, but Michael, the pup will belong to Drizz. If he is training using a method you disaprove of, that's his business. You are always welcome to say "I don't use that method because X" and insert a reason, but he is under no obligation and is perfectly within his rights to train his dog any way he wants. It's HIS dog. HIS personal liberty with something he owns, regardless of your feelings on it.

Which is what I did. I did not just simply disagree with the use of his training methods without providing my own methods. There was a suggestion to use an e-collar, so I found it fair to suggest positive reinforcement instead. Sure the conversation has changed in ways, but that's politicking, and is very common on this forum.

 

[Emily1188]

Michael, you're killing me with "negative reinforcement" business. I left you a nice post about operant conditioning terms. *hint hint*

 

[ceduke]

I think that a shock collar is unnecessary, there's no effect that a shock collar can have on a dog that you can't have. It seems to me as more of a "lazy mans" way of training dogs.

Right. I'm so lazy......I could totally have taught my dog not to bark when I'm not home without using a training tool. Yup. I'm so lazy, I should have just let us get evicted while I worked on his separation anxiety problems (WHICH TOOK MONTHS) and not used a tool that stopped the noise issue in its tracks.

 

[Emily1188]

I think that a shock collar is unnecessary, there's no effect that a shock collar can have on a dog that you can't have. It seems to me as more of a "lazy mans" way of training dogs. Choke chains are also unnecessary, there nothing a choke chain can do that a normal collar can't... aside from choking a dog.

This just isn't true. A choke chain can give a quick pop correction that you cannot (and should not!) give with flat buckle collar. I've used a choke chain to curb pulling and maintain focus - not my first tool of choice, but it has its merits.

As for the e-collar thing, that's just plain silly. Can you stop a dog 300 yards away from you chasing game dead in it's tracks? Can you tell a dog that can't even see you or hear to "come back now"? Can you condition a dog to fear snakes without him fearing you? Sure, you can whip a dog every time he sniffs out a snake - and then he'll go bolting from you. Great. Stim him with the collar, and it has nothing to do with you, just the snake.

I agree, lazy idiots put these on their dogs and shock the hell out of them for every little thing. However, very not lazy and non-idiots use for them great things, and with any sort of high-level shocking going on.

*decidedly pro e-collar* :duck:

 

[Michael823]

Right. I'm so lazy......I could totally have taught my dog not to bark when I'm not home without using a training tool. Yup. I'm so lazy, I should have just let us get evicted while I worked on his separation anxiety problems (WHICH TOOK MONTHS) and not used a tool that stopped the noise issue in its tracks.

That is a bit of a pickle. Separation anxiety is a pretty dramatic issue, and one that would probably drive the neighbors, and subsequently the land lord crazy. It is also very difficult to overcome, but can be done. There are different types of separation anxiety, most of which isn't actually anxiety, but more boredom. But by the sounds of it, your dog had actual anxiety, which can be similarly associated to a human panic attack. A shock collar might only make the anxiety worse, unless your dog was simply barking out of boredom, and not full blown anxiety at your absence.
If your dog still suffers from separation anxiety, I can probably offer you some good advice. I have an excellent little book which explains the cause, symptoms, and remedy quite well. I could relay the premise to you, or try to find out where I got the book so you could pick one up. It really breaks it down in a way that's easy to follow, and offers great training techniques to help curb the behavior.
That is quite tough though, it is heart wrenching to listen to, and can really be detrimental to your living situation, especially a rental with close quarters neighbors.

 

[Emily1188]

A shock collar might only make the anxiety worse,

Actually, a study was done on dogs with anti-bark collars. Their blood cortisol (stress hormone) levels showed a slight increase the first week of wearing the collar, and then dropped back to normal - even with the collar on. I will find the citation for you ASAP.

 

[Michael823]

Actually, a study was done on dogs with anti-bark collars. Their blood cortisol (stress hormone) levels showed a slight increase the first week of wearing the collar, and then dropped back to normal - even with the collar on. I will find the citation for you ASAP.

I would love a better explanation from you first. Are you relating it to actual separation anxiety, or just barking? If you are relating it to actual anxiety, than this supposed study has nothing to do with what you quoted.

 

[Emily1188]

It has everything to do with it.

Anxious = barking = shock. Dog learns barking cause shock, and overall stress levels drop back to normal. Dog expressed anxiety some other way.

The bark collar will not increase anxiety. To increase anxiety, you must create new stress, confusion, etc. The bark collar does not do that, hence the study.

Are you repressing one of the dog's means of expressing anxiety? Absolutely. Creating new anxiety? No.

 

[kathylove]

This does not address separation anxiety, but does show that it is likely that e collars CAN be used for some problems without undue stress to the dog:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=d9816e91b9d460f81cac91c5d8630371

Summary:
This led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators.

So it would seem useful for barking, staying on the property, chasing your cat, jumping up on things, and other typical problems that it might be used for, if done properly and carefully.

 

[snakemom1961]

I have to comment on the "Alpha" hierarchy. Is it not true that "we" the people in the families become the "alpha"? hence the reason dogs don't "fight for that alpha spot because they know the people of the "pack" are the alpha's. I think most dogs in families do NOT fight and live in a stable family. I know in my family our standard poodles and airedales all knew they were NOT alpha's to us

 

[KJUN]

Actually, a study was done on dogs with anti-bark collars. Their blood cortisol (stress hormone) levels showed a slight increase the first week of wearing the collar, and then dropped back to normal - even with the collar on. I will find the citation for you ASAP.

For those that don't know the importance of this post, corisol levels represent LONG TERM stress. If I jump out and yell, "Boo!" to successfully scare you, you get a rush of epinephrine (aka "adrenalin" to lay people). I'm sure the dog gets a rush of epinephrine when shocked. Physiologically, this is a stress repsonse - just like when you are startled. Cortisol levels are elevated when there is LONG-TERM stress. If dogs with an e-collar had elevated cortisol levels for extended periods - even after use was ceased - then I would agree that they have LONG-TERM stressing effects. This would be BAD.

However, the above study, if explained accurately, would show that there is no long-term physiological evidence of stress induced by the wearing or use of an e-collar. I believe this could be strong evidence to show that there is no lasting negative phsychological stresses caused by its use. It might not feel good, but if there is no evidence of lasting stress, no evidence of physical trauma, or anything else, how could you support the justification that its use is harmful?

Afterall, a gentle swat with a newspaper will cause an epinephrine release if it actually startles the dog!
KJ

 

[kathylove]

Here is an interesting summary of training techniques and studies using e collars, trying to determine just how much stress they create. It includes the previous study, plus more. I skimmed it, but don't have time to read it fully right now, as it is fairly long. But if you are interested in the subject, it might be worth reading.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...cortisol+level+study&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[mike17l]

Well I have missed all the fun and games the last 12 hours, but I will say this. It is not that we disagree with the use of positive reinforcement, what we disagree with is Michael/Ricky's argument that positive reinforcement is the only way to train a dog. Brent and myself will both agree that positive reinforcement it great and we use it, but we also think that there are other methods of training. If Ricky/Michael would actually read and comprehend what we have said, they would realize that their feet have been in their mouth since their first post on the topic. All we have argued and what I argue is that one should not speak in absolutes when dealing with animals, be it dog or snake or person. Absolutes get a person in trouble and frankly make them look a fool.

I am off to lunch, see yall in a while.

 

[Emily1188]

All we have argued and what I argue is that one should not speak in absolutes when dealing with animals, be it dog or snake or person. Absolutes get a person in trouble and frankly make them look a fool.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

 

[Michael823]

It has everything to do with it.

Anxious = barking = shock. Dog learns barking cause shock, and overall stress levels drop back to normal. Dog expressed anxiety some other way.

The anxiety argument isn't about barking. "Anxious = barking = shock" Anxiety is totally different than barking. It is like a panic attack, and is more whining, shaking, whelping, none of which can be corrected by an e-collar. How would you correctly time the shock if the dog is in constant panic? It would only add to the overall unpleasant experience of being alone. Separation anxiety is a whole other can of worms, and can not be confused with a dog who simply barks, or chews a slipper while you're gone.
Separation anxiety is a severely misdiagnosed problem. True separation anxiety is very evident. You put on your shoes - the dog starts to whine. You grab your car keys - the dog starts panting and circling. And by the time your dog has built up all of this anxiousness by studying the rituals that he/she associates with you leaving, he/she will go into a panic attack once you leave, bounding at the door, shaking, whining, etc... Thus a shock Collar can not treat the anxiety, as a shock collar at best is a tool used to correct an issue with a well timed stimulation. Timing and stimulation that can't compete with the influx of emotion a dog with separation anxiety has.
The key to solve this is changing your rituals. Your dog has learned the process in which you leave the house, which he negatively associates with being left alone. All of these behaviors become more exaggerated with each repetition of the process. So the only way to truly remove the anxiety is to undue the rituals, and work back to the beginning so that you can build a positive association to you being gone.
Start by putting your shoes on (a ritual your dog might have picked up on as a sign you will leave), but instead sit down for five minutes, and remove the shoes, thus stopping the dog from gaining anxiety in anticipation of step two, which may be grabbing your keys. Repeat this process until the dog shows no reaction (negative association of shoes = to being left alone), and can watch you put on your shoes with no ill affects.
Then move to grabbing your keys (figuratively to whatever your next ritual may be), and so on and so forth, until these procedures no longer cause your dog to be anxious.
After a consistent duration of desensitizing the dog to these "rituals" you are ready to rebuild the foundation in which you can create a positive association to you leaving. This might include saving an extra special toy or bone, and offering to the dog ONLY when you walk out of the door. Keep building positive associations to you leaving, and eventually the dog should be content with the rituals leading up to you leaving, and act of you being gone.
Then if your dog starts to show signs of anxiety to you leaving, or the procedures that proceed you leaving (shoes, keys, etc...) just switch it up, or repeat the steps.

The bark collar will not increase anxiety. To increase anxiety, you must create new stress, confusion, etc. The bark collar does not do that, hence the study.

Are you repressing one of the dog's means of expressing anxiety? Absolutely. Creating new anxiety? No.

I think the key is "expressing anxiety", not actually addressing the anxiety itself. And like I explained, barking is not a definitive sign of real anxiety. And yes, it will create new anxiety, as the point of addressing anxiety is to remove ALL negative associations with the owner leaving.