Remote collar provoked a bite, trainer disagrees. What now? (very long, sorry)...

[Muckdogs]

Yes for the rott and my Malx bitch will be trialing in June, as she is only 20 mos. She is a little too handler soft to have done it any earlier without putting pressure on her that may have shut her down.

[Karyn]

Thanks to all of you for this thread. I have found it very, very interesting. Winston, my rescue, was a fence jumper and car chaser. In despiration I turned to the ecollar.. it definitely helped and surely saved his life and mine. I really liked the trainer I had and she pretty much followed Muck Dogs philosophy. This has really cleared up a lot of questions I had regarding the e-collar as it came from objective sources. Thanks again for contributing your knowledge.

[HerculesMomma]

After reading through the thread Sam, it seems to me that you have a good opinion on whether or not your dog bite was a result of the collar. Trust your instincts here and since no one knows your dog like you do, you are probably the best one to answer that question.

In my opinion, if anyone beat the crap out of me day in and day out for any length of time I wouldn't bite them - I'd get a gun and end it for once and for all. I would neeeevvver tolerate it. So how shocking the crap out of a dog with an e-collar can't fit within the same idealogoy seems like a logical assumption. But take my opinion with a grain of salt - I'm a novice and wouldn't call my dog a "hard" dog to work with.

[SonnyRott]

Thank you muckdogs for your thorough explanation. I appreciate it and I am sure it has helped many to see the correct use of an ecollar!

It is unfortunate that the OP's dog had to suffer through the "learning" phase by being stimmed while the command was being issued???? It never gave the dog the opportunity to do the right thing, first. It just didn't make sense to me that this could somehow benefit the dog in learning the proper behavior and it resulted in the dog "having had enough" by lashing out.

I also agree that a command should be issued 1 time and the dog is given a "short" period to respond. No stopping to smell the roses along the way. Nothing sounds more irritating than to listen to someone repeat "sit", "sit", "I said siiiit", "hey you..sit", "sit"......and all the while the dog looks at its owner like they are a big dummy.

[alexav]

Originally Posted by SonnyRott

Nothing sounds more irritating than to listen to someone repeat "sit", "sit", "I said siiiit", "hey you..sit", "sit"......and all the while the dog looks at its owner like they are a big dummy.

I agree. I always tell my students that "If you give your dog a command, and you don't follow through...You are UNtraining your dog."

This is a bit ironic that you say this since the OP's was taught this technique by people that call their business "Sit Means Sit". I like to call it something else...but I won't here because it would be deleted!

[JeanT]

I was sickened to read this thread.

To directly address the OP's question, even a non-expert like me using some dog knowledge and common sense (common sense is available to everyone, and it may also be known as "gut instict"), can recognize cause and effect. Your dog was fed up at receiving yet another irritating and painful (doesn't matter if it was a lot of pain or a little - your trainer will say and even show people that it doesn't "hurt") jab that seemed to come from what was nearby, surprising, unjustified and unprovoked (unprovoked because he hadn't been trained). Or transferred his frustration (which he had already made clear to you) with the source (e-collar) to whatever was nearest.

Before I forget, when you are sued (and if Daddy is a lawyer you will be sued), insist that your attorney implead your e-coller trainer and Daddy of No Limitations for falsely advertising and creating a "dangerous dog" (which is part of what the lawsuit is going to claim you have). You were suckered into the NL training method and you have been suckered into a "gentlemen's aggreement" during which exhange you have probaly made all kinds of statements which are going to be used against you thnking it would make you seen like a nice innocent person, including that you already realized that your dog was not responding to the e-collar as you expected, but gee, this sure was a surprise, you never thought anything like this would happen.

And tell your lawyer that (too late) you have learned that there are many true experts in the use of e-collars for training that he/she can call upon for testimony; tha when properly used e-collers can be a very good training tool (and none of those people will support the NL training and sales methodolgy). A rare few may even understand/use an e-coller other than as an aversive, but they will not support the NL training.

Your trainer paid Daddy NL $5000 (maybe more now, and I don't know the kick-backs for advertising and sale of e-collar equipment) to learn the sales techniques and how to burn dogs into submission while persuading the owners that the screaming, peeing, belly-crawling are just your dog's trying to manipulate your too soft emotions. Ooops, your dog didn't do any of this? Turn up the current. Still unreliable? Well, Rottweilers canbe hard to train. I guess yours is just hard-wired wrong - you'd better put him down.

I'm becoming very cynical about some things. For the sake of your lawsuit defense, find a good trainer and work with your dog to prove that your trainer and NL did this, not you and your dog. You can at least protect your assets.

PS My dog was a belly-crawler.

[SamL]

Folks, in the interest of fairness to everyone involved I need to bring up another incident which I had no recollection of until reminded by another forum member:

In a nutshell, a couple years back the dog and I were on a walk with a prong collar when he encountered a husky and went off. I popped him with the collar and he DID nail me in the wrist. The advice at the time suggested that the dog was redirecting his frustration and that I unfortunately was the recipient of that frustration.

So, knowing this... do any of your opinions change? I have mentioned previously and won't deny that the dog at times takes poorly to correction so I think we pretty much understand the dog -- he has obviously proven that the more severe the correction, the more severe the reaction. To me it's clear that this dog needs a positive, motivational approach which he has never really experienced... would any of you disagree?

Had I remembered this incident I would have been quick to bring it up, though in dealing with my own very traumatic experience in the recent past it becomes difficult for me to remember other stressing experiences. Yay for therapy.

[alexav]

Doesn't change anything for me.... This dog needs to be taught good behavior and not just punished for unacceptable behavior.

[damp]

I have not read all the posts in this thread, but my thoughts are: The foundation lacks and this dog really needs leadership and training! He is too smart obeying and being tossed around by a “remote control”

[UnclLou]

SamL wrote: I issued a single command 'come' along with a collar correction (the collar was on a "3", typically the dog doesn't respond unless it's on a "5".)

LC: I'll suggest that if you're using any TriTronics Ecollar and your dog "doesn't respond unless it's on a '5' " that there's something VERY wrong either with the Ecollar or the method. .

SamL wrote: The dog was introduced to remote collar training using the No Limitations method about a year and a half ago

LC: Now I see at least one of the problems. These folks use very high levels of stim and I'd bet that's what brought your dog to bite.

SamL wrote: However, in the recent past the dog has exibited obvious signs of disdain for the collar and will snarl and occasionally nip when corrected in certain situations (for instance, if he's 'beamed' on another dog or enamored with a scent and doesn't want to leave it, or other situations where the dog desires to be dominant). The trainer has been persistent in "keeping on the dog" and not letting up on the collar.

LC: Many of the NL folks don't know too much about dogs. They go to a three week long school and that's it. Of course some of them are quite knowledgeable.

SamL wrote: I am not typically one to question the authority of a trainer especially when I have witnessed firsthand the collar transforming awful, even vicious dogs into manageable companions

LC: One of the first effects of using high levels of stim is to suppress ALL behaviors, including the aggressive ones. But often the dogs acclimate to the high levels of stim and the Ecollar becomes a trigger for them.

SamL wrote: but the approach of pushing the dog to the point of aggression towards ME seems asinine. Am I wrong for questioning this?

LC: I certainly don't think so. I'd suggest that you keep using the Ecollar but NOT the way that those folks have taught you to.

SamL wrote: The trainer was made aware of the incident today and was remarkably quick to dismiss the collar as the reason for the bite. The response was along the lines of "because he is such a dominant dog, he would have aggressed regardless of the correction, whether it had been verbal, a prong collar, or what-have-you".

LC: It's a VERY rare dog that will aggress from a verbal correction; not a dog that anyone would want to have in their home and especially not around their guests.

SamL wrote: I am inclined to disagree and feel that the trainer is mostly attempting to protect their interests and method of training.

LC: I'd agree.

SamL wrote: The last thing I'm sure they want is for me going around telling everyone how much the remote collar sucks and that I believe it provoked a bite.

LC: It's not the Ecollar that sucks, it's how it's used.

SamL wrote: I FIRMLY BELIEVE that the collar was the sole reason for this incident and the attitude of the trainer is irritating, to say the least.

LC: I'd tend to agree. In any case, if you're not getting what you want from that trainer, drop him.

SamL wrote: I am firmly convinced that the collar is not the "cure all" that the trainers purport them to be, and that it is probably NOT the best method for a highly driven, dominant animal.

LC: I'd agree based on how your trainer uses the tool. HOWEVER, it's not the best way to use it. I believe that it's the best tool for training virtually any dog as long as it's used properly. I believe that stim should be used at the level that the dog first perceives as the dial is turned up. You'll find that the results are quite different from those who use the tool at the level just below where the dog vocalizes. It's almost like a completely different tool.

SamL wrote: I should add that during our conversation today the trainer suggested I consider putting the dog down! Is this even a reasonable thing to consider after just a single bite incident where the reason for the bite itself is in debate?

LC: I think that's disgraceful!

Diva'sOwner wrote: The Dobie, like your dog, also figured out that the correction was coming from the collar.

LC: This is a sign that the training HAS NOT been done properly. The dog should think that the stim came from HIS behavior, not the Ecollar. He should think that it's his behavior that made the stim start and his behavior that made it stop.

BostonRott wrote: A dog who does not respond unless the collar is on a 5 is a dog who has been abused by the collar. 5 should be a level only needed when a dog is in extreme drive and walking across a room of people is not extreme drive.

LC: I agree. I don't know what model of Ecollar you're using but I'd bet that a 5 is the highest or nearly the highest level of stim that it offers. You should almost never be at that level if the training has been done properly. I see this as a problem introduced by this style of using the tool.

Judi W wrote: Humm, if the training "took" then one should not be needing to be in a position of giving corrections all the time.

LC: Just because a dog is wearing an Ecollar "all the time" hardly means that he's getting corrections "all the time." Most dogs wear some kind of collar "all the time," some a correction collar, yet they're not being corrected "all the time."

Judi W wrote: The whole purpose of training is to have the dog respond to commands and/or instructions because it has learned to do so without being dependent on corrections.

LC: The whole purpose of having an Ecollar on the dog all the time is for that time when he decides, for reasons of his own, not to comply with a command. That can happen anytime with any dog, no matter what tool was used in the training. The advantage of having an Ecollar on the dog "all the time" is that when this occurs, he can instantly be corrected. With other tools you can't.

Judi W wrote: Every second they are out of their crates?!!!! That is what I was commenting on. I don't have rabbits running through my home or yard

LC: A refusal of a command can occur anytime. When it happens with a dog who's wearing an Ecollar, he can be corrected. What do you do?

hmeadq wrote: Can someone please give me a better idea of exactly what this training method entails?

LC: I'd ask that you take at my site. There are a few training articles there that will show you how I use the tool.

SamL wrote: You are absolutely correct in the assertion that the e-collar is now a HINDRANCE when it is not fitted. I now have a dog who is completely 'useless' without it, and will not reliably respond to ANY command without a stim.

LC: This is not an uncommon occurrence. It's come from too much "autostimming" (giving the stim with the command) constantly. The dog has come to believe that the stim = the command. It's a small matter to train this away.

SamL wrote: The problem now is that my dog is no better off than he was before the collar traning -- I have spent a good deal of time and money on this approach. It is becoming very clear to me why all of the No Limitations trainers offer free followup training for the life of the dog -- you really have no other choice!

LC: Well, actually you do. I make the same offer but have never had anyone call me who needed follow-up. I make sure that they understand the theory so they don't need me again.

SamL wrote: I was told that EVERY "sit", EVERY "stay", and EVERY "come", "heel" or what have you should be given with a stim and that the collar should be fitted whenever the dog is outside of my home.

LC: This is basic training. It shouldn't continue for very long.

SamL wrote: The trainers equate the stim to a "tap on the shoulder"

LC: A stim that's at this level, that it causes aggression is hardly a "tap on the shoulder." It's a punch in the mouth! A "tap" is just that, a very light touch. Those folks don't use a tap by ANY stretch of the imagination.

SamL wrote: I will not name names, but during a recent event the "father" of the No Limitations method himself witnessed the nipping behavior from the dog during the collar training and insisted that I stay on the dog. I even pointed out "Look, the dog is p'd off and is biting me", and the response was "keep on it, he won't hurt you".

LC: If any trainer encourages you to keep doing something that's causing a dog to bite you, RUN from him as fast as you can. I know the "father" of NL quite well. I once offered to teach him about drives so that he could improve his training. His response was classic. He said, "I only need to know about one drive. The 'do it when I say do it drive.' "

Judi W wrote. You are getting the point. Good. Easy for him to say keep it up, he was not the one that was going to be bitten!

LC: Great point!

Judi W wrote: Like I said, it is going to take a long time, but you can change things.

LC: Of course "long time" is a relative thing. Ten minutes can seem like an eternity if you're trying to hold your breath! I'd suggest that if you switched methods but stayed with the same tool you could bring the dog back in less than 4-5 weeks time. Then training could progress from there.

Diva'sOwner wrote: I was horrified to read that EVERY command EVERY time gets a jolt. Ohmigosh. If if were the dog, that would make me fearful and/or pissed of each time I heard a command.

LC: I'd agree as long as you're talking about the method that was used, high level stim. But working at the level where he first perceives the stim, this doesn't happen.

Diva'sOwner wrote: Please, please find a trainer that doesn't use collars

LC: Don't blame the tool for misuse by the trainer.

Diva'sOwner wrote: People who are successful with the collar do not zap with the command.

LC: Using my system this is exactly what's done. But it's down where the dog first perceives the stim level, not where he screams in pain. It's not a "zap." It's a buzz or a tingle.

alexav wrote: What most of these instant gratification e-collar for dollars people just don't understand is that a dog will work 10 times harder to get something he wants than he will to avoid something he doesn't want. ie pain.

LC: There's nothing that says that one can't combine Ecollars with treats or whatever the dog regards as a reward. In fact, the fastest learning comes from using both aversives and rewards together.

Mavides wrote: they should be able to perform out there without needing those types of corrections.

LC: Having an Ecollar on does not mean that a dog "needs" corrections. But it gives the handler the ability to correct if it needs to be done. This allows for much more consistency than a leash.

SonnyRott wrote: I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to stim a dog in teaching

LC: Many people use the Ecollar not only as an aversive or a correction but for teaching as well.

SonnyRott wrote: I can also see how he may not want to obey, out of understanding and respect, but rather out of pain...

LC: At the level that I use the tool, I'd not call it "pain." I think that pain runs a continuum from 1 (that's mildly unpleasant) to 10 (I can't stand that for another second!) I use the Ecollar down at level 1 while the dog is learning.

SonnyRott wrote: I don't see the value of ecollar for everyday training when the everyday job of dog ownership is very hands on and time consuming and the teaching/learning/bonding process is what makes the relationship between a smart dog like the Rottweiler so great and very deep.

LC: I've never been of the opinion that just because training takes longer, it's necessarily better.

SamL wrote: The trainer indicates that, based on their observations regarding the character of the dog, that he is and will always be a 'managed case' and would have bitten someone anyway regardless of the method of correction, that it was just a matter of time.

LC: If this was the case a decent trainer should have seen it long ago. It shouldn't have taken this incident to key the trainer into this problem.

SamL wrote: I have succesfully kept him from lunging at other dogs by holding his attention with the collar

LC: This problem is often deeper than just keeping the dog's attention on you.

SamL wrote: Now that I have made the choice to discontinue its use, I'm back to square one.

LC: I disagree. You're far past square one. You now know what WON'T work with your dog, this style of using the tool. I'd suggest that you investigate other methods that it can be used. I've never come across a problem that someone had created with an Ecollar that I couldn't fix with an Ecollar.

SamL wrote: I am having reservations about the realization that with the remote collar method this dog will need to be "plugged in" for the rest of his life... surely there's a better way?!

LC: If you want to wean the dog off the Ecollar it can be done, just as it's done with any other tool.

spidey wrote: the practice of correcting the dog every time you issue a command is certainly a good way to have a dog with constantly frayed nerves

LC: This is way too general a statement. This DOES NOT occur with low level stim.

spidey wrote: The problem isn't the collar, the problem is the way the collar is being used. You can abuse any training device, even a flat collar, this does not say anything about the device itself, but rather about the trainer using it.

LC: YES YES YES!

spidey wrote: But I would certainly do what others have suggested and put the collar away at least for now and get into some motivational, relationship-building, FUN training classes.

LC: I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive. I'd work on building a relationship using food and yielding exercises and at the same time using an Ecollar properly to do the OB work.

frontierrots wrote: YES prongs and E collars can indeed cause a bite in SOME dogs, especially dogs in drive or dogs that feel correction was unfair.

LC: I've put Ecollars on over 1,000 dogs. I've NEVER had one of them bite from a low level stim. We're talking about two very different things here but not everyone is making the distinction.
JeanT wrote: (doesn't matter if it was a lot of pain or a little - your trainer will say and even show people that it doesn't "hurt")

LC: In fact it makes a significant difference. The level at which most NL trainers work is quite painful. I work at the level of discomfort of a flea bite. There's QUITE A BIT of difference.

JeanT wrote: Before I forget, when you are sued (and if Daddy is a lawyer you will be sued), insist that your attorney implead your e-coller trainer and Daddy of No Limitations for falsely advertising and creating a "dangerous dog"

LC: Good advice here.

JeanT wrote: And tell your lawyer that (too late) you have learned that there are many true experts in the use of e-collars for training that he/she can call upon for testimony

LC: More good advice.


SamL wrote: a couple years back . . . I popped him with the collar and he DID nail me in the wrist . . . So, knowing this... do any of your opinions change?

LC: Some dogs have a low threshold for being corrected physically. I think that for these dogs the Ecollar is the best too available. The discomfort level is kept low so that the dog does not get reactive. He associates the stim with his behavior using my method, not with his handler.

SamL wrote: To me it's clear that this dog needs a positive, motivational approach which he has never really experienced... would any of you disagree?

LC: It depends on what you mean by a "positive, motivational approach." I think that the way that I use the tool it's positive and motivational. If you're referring to what's commonly known as PP (Pure Positive) methods, I'm not a fan. They rarely give reliability with highly driven dogs unless you're working in an endeavor that they find self rewarding.

LC: Finally I apologize for the length of this post. By the time I found it, it was already four pages long.