The "Never Shock a Puppy" (NSAP) Campaign

edited September 2010 in Behavior & Training
This is a pretty nice initiative you may want to check out...

Never Shock A Puppy
http://nevershockapuppy.com

----

Comments

  • Very interesting article thanks.
  • I would not shock a puppy, but I will shock an adult dog if it is required. Rattlesnake bite prevention, breaking off of livestock, etc.

    My concern with this campaign is that there are no grey areas for them. Never shock a puppy = never shock any dog. No matter what.
  • That is a great initiative. Thanks for sharing!
  • @ayk: I think they did leave a little latitude. They said most people who use shock collars aren't professionals, don't have good timing, and don't have an even temperament. I read that to indicate that under those circumstances, a shock collar can be used responsibly. I know there are some on this forum that would disagree with that statement. But I do believe shock collars have value when used appropriately and when other properly implemented techniques have proven not to work.
  • I think it's a great initiative too. I don't see the point of hurting a dog. Personally, I'd rather they didn't leave room for options when it could be used--even though I have considered the use of the shock collar in certain extreme circumstances (snake training) I am against them overall, and I think the whole point of a campaign like this is not to consider the exceptions, but to say, overall, trying to "teach" a dog with pain is a really bad idea, and inhumane as well.

    To stay on message, they need to keep saying that, and I think it's a good message overall.
  • This is the quote that indicates that they don't agree with shock collars for even special circumstances:

    "We are well aware that others do NOT object to the use of these kinds of dog training tools, either in general or in certain situations. We know the ways disagreement over these issues typically play out — especially online.

    So, in the words of one of our Never Shock a Puppy Coalition members (Debbie Jacobs from FearfulDogs.com):

    'It’s not that we don’t understand your methods. We simply disagree with them'"


  • I want to see them train a duck dog on multiple blind retrieves and have the dog come back each time without deviating without the use of a shock collar.

    Speaking for the hunting dog community, we never use a e-collar to cause pain. we use it at its lowest stimulation to correct bad habits. I'm definately against inhumane treatment of animals and causing pain to a dog. We dont even introduce a e-collar until a dog is about 9 months to a year old. IMHO there are certain times where positive reinforcement will not work. But never the less its an interesting article.

    I do agree that when used in the wrong hands, it can really affect a dog. There are guys out in the field who's dogs are just absolutely startled and scared of every thing because they have been trained either at a really young age or trained with high stimulation over a long period of time. It may not be the right tool for basic obedience or potty training but for gun dog training its impossible without it.

    I started Hana on the e-collar when she was about 10 months because she would deviate her course of retrieve when bringing back birds. She still has problems with blind retrieves and not following my hand signals when going for a lost bird. I feel its just impossible to break her bad habits without it. I also use the e-collar on Taro when he wants to go after cattle and horses.
  • I don't like e collars personally but as shishiinu stated they do have there uses as long as the dog understands that the correction is from the handler and not from environment or other places it could be a great training tool. I feel that training in some circumstances does require a mild negative form of punishment.
    You can only throw treats at a dog so much, I love the idea of fully positive re-enforcement but the negative is required at times.
    At the moment i am only using a prong collar on my akita at night walking during the day is fine but no matter how hard i treat reward him when he is buy my side his prey drive is to high of a night with so many small animals around.
  • I guess I'm with them, then. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I disagree. I really really liked and agreed with the statement that learning shouldn't hurt. Exactly.

    All this with the caveat that I know nothing about training a dog for hunting, so can't really speak to that at all, but there is, btw, an article in the Whole Dog Journal this month about hunting dogs trained with positive training methods. And that I have considered the e-collar for snake avoidance (but still haven't done it), but for me that is a life or death situation.
  • I'm currently reading "Positive Gun Dogs" which is all about gun dog training with clickers. But, I would like to point out that an e-collar used properly to train a gun dog is not a punishment, it is actually a negative reward (in the Skinnerian sense of reward). The dog learns that doing the desired behavior turns off the stimulus, so they are rewarded for doing it. I'm not making a value judgment, just pointing that out. Also, a properly used e-collar isn't supposed to hurt either. That video they use in the article is clearly some moron who has the e-collar turned up very high. Experienced gun dog trainers keep the e-collar set at the lowest possible setting where the slightest muscle twitch can be observed in reaction to a "stimulus". It is not intended to hurt, it is intended only to be noticed. Again, no value judgment on whether or not it is the right thing to do, I'm just offering up some additional information.
  • Nice comments I'm all for E collar use as long as it's done by people who know how to use them, but with people who just buy the collar and with no help on training uses it on their dog to stop it from doing something.

    My grandmother has a Ecollar on her mini Schnauzer to correct her barking I had checked and she had it on it's highest setting sad.. =( The dog still barks even when the shock collar is used.

    I haven't read the artifcal fully, but I thought it'd be something like puppies as in 8 weeks.. I'm more for proper use of E collar, but not the kinda where people want it to be a quick fix for something.
  • I did a little research on the "Positive Gun Dogs" raining method and watched some of the youtube vids on the training. I could be wrong and may not have done enough research but it seems the practice still has not really reached the field trial community and field hunters. I follow the training methods taught by Richard Walter in the Gun Dog series and the positive training use is incorporated heavily into the training but the use of a e-collar is used to correct on going problems.

    When I started training retrievers when I was 14, I could not afford a e-collar so my retriever at the time had many bad habits and with my latest lab Hana, I have been able to correct the problems much easier and faster with the use of a e-collar. One major problem Hana had was when returning from a retrieve she would circle behined the duck blind and then cross infront of the blind to get to my area.

    After incorportating a e-collar she learned the negative feeling the e-collar gave her when she returned off line. Once she comes back correctly she would be treated with praise and a snack. She's no trail dog but she gets the job done and she loves to hunt as Dave will probably say the same.

  • edited September 2010
    My thought process on e-collars...they are a "tool" but like any "tool" should not be used, or abused, especially by people who have not been taught properly how to use them.

    However, IF you can do it withOUT the e-collar, I think this method should be #1. I like to think of the e-collar as a "last resort," & only to be used in situations where it is absolutely needed & other methods have been exhausted.

    Also, I've spoken to quite a few trainers who use e-collars [ again, they use them as a "last resort" the way I've said ] & all have stated that the e-collar should only be used on the lower levels. Enough to cause a "trigger" but not enough to cause "pain." ~
  • edited September 2010
    I personally have never seen a dog taught anything using pain based stimulus that couldn't be taught another way. The only exception I can think of my be snake training. However I am fairly certain that someone out there is clever enough to prove me wrong and could train a dog to avoid snakes without an e-collar.
  • Gen is absolutely right. He has trained Hana beautifully, and the use of an e-collar with her has not created a negative association with hunting for her. Well, if it has, I'd be scared to see how excited about hunting she would get if there wasn't that negative association. ;-)

    I think using a potentially aversive tool should not just be a last resort, but also be dictated by the dog. Gen, who has trained Hana beautifully using an e-collar, will also be the first to tell you that you should never use an e-collar on a NK. I've been talking with a few gun dog trainers who use e-collars. One who trains GSPs and starts them on the collar at six months. Another who trains Vizslas and starts them on the collar at a year. Why the difference? Vizslas are notoriously soft dogs. The first year of their hunting experience needs to be all fun and games. Later, once they have matured, this trainer will use the e-collar (as Osy suggested) to cause a "trigger" and correct bad habits.

    Again, I'm not advocating for or against the use of e-collars. The point I'm trying to make is that like with all things dogs, you have to find the solution that works best for the individual dog and your training abilities.

    @shishiinu: You are correct, positive gun dog training hasn't made it into the ranks of field trialers, but many people have trained successful hunting companions using those methods. I could sit here and speculate why field trial trainers don't use those methods, but I think it is too complicated an issue to know for sure. My suspicion is that it's a cultural thing that may change some day, but it is going to take a paradigm shift that starts from a new generation of gun dog trainers.
  • I've been staying out of this conversation as I don't have much to add other than my usual mantra - and I don't want to sound like a broken record.

    However, I would like to point out that, while the verbiage of the this campaign's site may not specifically say it, I'm pretty sure it is not targeted (specifically or directly) at the advanced training user-base or working crowed.

    I think the campaign is targeted at general dogdom, and the less experienced and less educated (on training concepts) dog owner. The same owner-base who blindly follow CM's "methods" and propaganda never questioning the logic or the techniques used on their dogs.

    I think using a shock collar to teach a hunting dog to retrieve birds is a very small niche when compared to all of dogdom, or even just the user-base I described above - if the campaign was specifically targeted at the hunting community then I think it would explicitly "call out" the hunting community.

    I will say that I don't love the idea of shock collars, and I would love to see a different method used, but I don't know what that method is and so I have to agree that, in some cases, the shock collar is hard to replace - not impossible to replace - but hard. The remote collar (the remoteness, not the shock) certainly adds some value in very specific training situations - training situations that the average dog owner will likely never be in.

    If I am to speak honestly, I do have some issue with the sport world using shock collars to win their titles as opposed to the working world. I draw a line there. Maybe is a biased line. If you are working your dog in a sport for fun, then it should be fun for the dog too (not just the owner). If an owner has to hurt their dog to win a sport then it doesn't sound like a very fun sport for the dog. Those titles are for the owner, not the dog, shocking the dog to win the titles just makes it kinda creepy (and selfish) IMHO.

    Take a look at this company: http://www.sitmeanssit.com/

    I'm pretty sure it's the audience of that type of school (link above), and the trainers that work for that type of company, that this this campaign is directly targeting and not the very small and narrow niche of birddog trainers.

    I'm sure the campaign's members, like me, would like to see birddog trainers NOT use shock collars... But I'm pretty sure their more interesting in targeting the owners of the dogs that attend those entry-level training camps (like Sit-Means-Sit) and not so much the working/hunting world.

    JMHO

    ----
  • Yeah, Brad is saying what I thought: I don't think they're talking about bird dogs, but about the general populace who sees a shock collar as a basic training device. And I think overall it is a good campaign. I also agree with Brad: for me, a dog sport should be fun for the dog too, and using this kind of aversive is really repugnant to me. And re: Sit-means-Sit, I can't believe they say "we don't allow yelling" in our classes, but they do allow shock collars. WTF is wrong with people?

    It really should be fun for the dog. I gave up agility classes with my GSD after awhile because I finally realized that he was super stressed by the class and wasn't enjoying them. He liked some things--jumping through hoops, jumping over hurdles, but the atmosphere of the class with so many distractions and so many things going on was stressful for him (and this was years ago and it was NOT a positive reinforcement situation, so when he showed his stress (mouthing me) the trainer kept telling me just give him a good leash correction and he'll stop that. Of course he got more agitated, not less with all that. I wish I'd simply known to look for another kind of class, but I didn't then).
  • aykayk
    edited September 2010
    I'm probably supersensitve about these campaigns because stuff like this leads to the extreme reaction of banning.

    Just like tethering is now restricted and banned because some people abused tethering, leading to neglected or frustrated dogs, and how owning intact dogs is illegal or considered irresponsible because some people couldn't control their dogs, and how outdoor kennels or even doggie doors are starting to get frowned upon, so goes one more dog-owning tool, electronic collars.
  • While I agree with Brad that in many cases, shock collars are used incorrectly or unnecessarily, the campaign doesn't really distinguish that it's not a purely a black and white moral issue. Granted, that's probably slogans along the lines of "Shock collars are bad! (Except in some particular cases when used by properly trained individuals)" aren't terribly catchy.
  • I think when you read as much dog info as many of us do, it is key to know the audience, as Brad points out, and whether you are among it. I have a lot of issues with interpreting rather personally stuff I am NOT the intended audience for. I am not alone. Ofcourse, this doesnt hold well for ultimatum type causes. I am not a good joiner, I cant latch onto absolute statements, PERIOD! :)

    I think at upper intensities of dialog/books/articles by various dognoscenti, we peek in on trainers talking to trainers, and at other times we read imperfect or overly general information for people who are not as intense as we are. It requires parsing. I could respond to this cause (again!) about why, when and on whom for what event I use a prong collar with what precautions, but this campaign is not about me, and I can see that. But I know some people I'd like to recommend the NSAP concept to. Am I holier than thou? or just not the target audience?
Sign In or Register to comment.