I need some guidance on using an E-collar!

[diane silver]

I'm feeling very stressed about my decision to try an E-collar with Emma.  Though she is now two , (I thought she'd outgrow it), she will still sometimes chase running children (my grandsons included), nipping at their hands and feet, and also will make a "bee line" for the mud puddle at the local dog park, with me constantly trying to have her "come" or to "leave it."  I purchased an e-collar and it's still in the packaging, since I'm feeling very torn about even trying to use it, knowing that there's so much controversy about them.  I certainly want to use it properly, use a "tone" initially, etc., etc., and I have a good friend who uses one very effectively on her prey-driven, small dog (she's offered to help me).  I'm wondering if I should hire a professional trainer to observe Emma and tell me if an E-collar is something that would be beneficial, or if I should return it, or . . . . . we're about to have our third grandchild, and obviously, I want to nip this behavior before the baby begins crawling, etc.  Any guidance from anyone would be so appreciated - I've come to you all many times before, and value your opinions.  Thanks.

[F, Calla & Luca]

Yes we all know you adore Gracie and we all love our dogs or we wouldn't feel the need to spend time thinking about and discussing these issues.

[Barbara B., Sasha & Oliver]

Hi - I have the e-collar & fence system, tried it on myself first because like you I was leary as well - believe me it does not hurt, on most dogs you will need to start out at the lowest setting and that will be enough to work (its like putting your tongue on a battery). With only about two times and having it set on a very low level I corrected Sasha when she was doing something she was not supposed to be doing. Now all I need to do is either reach for the remote or just give a beep warning and she immediately stops. The fence worked the same way, I live on a busy street 3 sides of my property is fence except for the front. Installed the fence (PetSafe brand) did about 2 wks. of training, Sasha only needed to get the beep then vibration and knew her boundries (doodles are such quick learners). I recommend it.

[diane silver]

Thanks for all your suggestions and encouragement . . . I am feeling better about the use of the collar, and I know that I'll use it correctly and humanely. I, like all of you, am crazy about my pup and would never want to do harm to her, either physically or emotionally.

[Maryann,Roo and Tigger]

I am an absolute believer in the e-collar. I used one to train Roo, but not Tigger. They are very helpful with high drive dogs. High drive is dog trainer code for hyper, crazy, tons of energy, easily distracted, not able to be distracted from a perferred activity.

However I do think it is not a good idea at all to use one without a trainer to help you at first. Chasing is a natural instinct and particularily high in some dogs, obviously in Emma. I do know my trainer was very specific about when not to use it as even the tone can cause some dogs to be more engaged or agressive. The collar is to reenforce a desired activity, rather than to stop an undesirable one. Getting Emma to come instead of chase for example as Janice mentioned. Still a professional would be desirable.

Since this particular behavior is really a problem for all including Emma, any money spent on a knowledgeable trainer will be well worth it. Good Luck

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I think there are a few different issues here, and each of them maybe needs to be addressed differently.
I personally am not a fan of e-collars; they may not cause pain, but the sensation has to be unpleasant enough to cause the dog to avoid getting a correction. In a situation where a dog's life is at stake, as described by those who are using e-fences and/or collars to keep their dogs from running into the street or escaping from a yard, I would use any means at my disposal to prevent those things from happening, including an e-collar.
But let's look at how this works. The dog learns that they need to stay within a certain area or they are going to experience an unpleasant consequence. That's okay. If a dog learns that running after the ball into the street causes something "bad" to happen, she's learned that running into the street is a bad thing. Good lesson.
But what if a dog is taught instead that approaching a child causes something bad to happen? That is NOT a good lesson, in my opinion.
Chasing is natural for dogs. If I start running, Jack will run after me. That's a desirable thing, in some circumstances. It's another way to get him to run toward me rather than away from me. So "chasing" children, to me, is not a behavior that needs an e-collar to correct. A dog just running after you is not hurtful or harmful. If anyone, children included, don't want to be chased by a dog, they have to learn that running in the presence of an uncontained dog is going to cause to the dog to chase them. This is an important lesson for any child, because a situation may some day arise where a child is approached by a strange dog who is not just playing. So in the case of chasing children, i really think it's the kids who need the training and not the dog.
The nipping at hands and feet is unacceptable in a two year old dog regardless of the circumstances. But again, this is a behavior that can be corrected through training methods other than an e-collar. When I see a dog who still nips human hands and feet past puppyhood, I usually get the feeling that this behavior has been unwittingly encouraged by adults (usually males) who play games with dogs that involve human hands and dogs' mouths. This may not be true in your case, but I would address the nipping with a trainer; even if you did use an e-collar to correct this behavior, you will not always be present throughout Emma's life ready to give a correction, so I would find an alternative method to stop the nipping.
Mud puddles. Well, as well-behaved as Jack is, he does love mud puddles. I would strongly prefer that he doesn't get into any mud puddles, because then he gets covered in mud, lol, which is unpleasant for me. If he drinks from the mud puddle, he might also be exposed to giardia, lepto, or other diseases. So at the dog park, we use "leave it" when we see mud puddles. Getting a dog reliable with the "leave it" command works better than a correction, because again, you may not always see the dog approach a mud puddle and be ready with a correction, electronic or otherwise. Jack is often far ahead of me on the trail at the dog park. He has to know that he must leave the mud puddle alone whether I can see him, or not, lol. I have found "drop it" and "leave it" to be among the easiest commands to teach, although like anything else, they do take a lot of practice & work.
Anyway, that's my opinion for what it's worth. There are definitely situations where an e-collar is necessary to save a dog's life or when other methods of correcting behavior have failed. But for some of the issues you are experiencing, i think other training methods might be more effective and make you more comfortable. I would at the very least consult a trainer, as Maryann suggested.
Good luck!

[Adina P]

I think your point about a dog connecting the kids to the electric stimulus from the collar is a good one. It could happen. But not if the dog is trained to the collar correctly. For instance, IF a dog had never felt a collar stim and the first time he feels that stim is when he's about to chase kids...then YES that could mess things up making the dog think it is the kids that caused the shock, creating a bad association.

BUT that's not how they are intended to be used. They work best in the overal scope of an ecollar obedience program, but even for just corrections the dog needs to be taught what those corrections mean first and that typically doesn't start by throwing him in the line of fire where he's gonna get confused like that. That's just not good training and I'd hope/assume a skilled ecollar trainer would not teach someone to introduce the collar in that way.

I also agree that kids should learn there are consequences to certain behaviors around dogs. But honestly I would rather my DOG learn to hold a stay and control themselves than to expect young kids to just sit around. Why should young kids be held captive to a dog's misbehavior...? Even if it is normal? Kids running around playing is normal too. But it is not okay for a dog to chase and nip at kids...EVER. So I say the kids win the right to act like kids in this case. I'd say the kids' freedom comes first (as long as they are not mistreating the dog or teasing it, etc) and the dog must learn self-control. Of course that learning for a dog is on US, the human...so it's not like the dog has to be able to do it without training or management.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

It's still an important part of a child's education about dogs to learn not to run from dogs, for their own safety; actually, for adults, too. This is also posted on signs about coyotes at our forest preserves.
I'm also not saying that kids should just sit around or be held captive to a dog who can't hold a stay, lol. I'm absolutely not advocating that a dog should be encouraged to chase kids, and nipping is never acceptable, as I said. All dogs must be taught basic obedience, and that includes holding a stay and all forms of self-control.
As one who has raised kids and grandchildren in homes with dogs, I have not found many kids who are running wildly in confined spaces to the point that the dogs are inspired to chase them. I have never ever seen even a halfway trained house dog chase a toddler, who isn't really able to "run" even as fast as dog can walk anyway, so there really isn't any temptation to chase in that case. There are rules about children truly running in many homes, too. I'm not sure that "acting like a kid" must include running indoors, even assuming that the home is large enough for running to actually take place, lol. Outdoors, given that nipping is not permitted under any circumstances, if kids are running in a yard, field, etc., where is the harm if the dog is running, too, as long as he isn't making physical contact with them?

[Adina P]

True. Good points. And if the dog doesn't make physical contact with kids as he/she runs after them/with them, that's also OK. It's only when that dog isn't capable of abstaining from physical contact (friendly intentions or not) while running that I think the dog should NOT run. If it gets riled up and being riled up means it wants to nip and make contact...then the dog should be in a down stay or confined or leashed. But yes, kids should be taught that they should not RUN from a dog that is approaching them.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I guess what I'm also asking about, is the wisdom of using an e-collar for situations that are variable, like running or playing with kids.
A boundary is a boundary, and the boundaries don't change. Dogs that are trained to an e-fence know how far they can safely go, and that doesn't vary from day-to-day. If they go past X point, they get a correction. So they could easily associate the correction with the behavior..."Here okay, over there bad".
But running...sometimes it's okay to run, and sometimes it's not allowed? If a dog gets zapped when he runs toward a kid, but doesn't get zapped when he just runs across an empty yard, what behavior does the dog connect the correction to? (Substitute a verbal command for the zap and I still don't get it, except that the dog should always listen to you. But there still has to be consistency.) It can't be running, right, because sometimes running is okay. So clearly, getting zapped has something to do with the kids. At least, this is how it seems to me. I would very much like to be corrected on this if there is something I'm not seeing.
None of my dogs has ever been allowed to jump up on people. (Or anything else). So if Jack runs after a kid, there's no harm in that, since he doesn't touch the child. This summer, my GS is going to condition for football by racing with Jack. (Poor child is totally being set up for failure, but he'll get some good workouts, lol.) Now, if Jack had been trained not to chase children, we couldn't do that. You can't encourage a behavior sometimes and discourage it at other times, and if you want to know why, look up intermittent reinforcement. Crazy making.
So I think a dog has to be taught not to jump up, not to nip, not to make physical contact at all while running, but I don't think they should be taught not to run after, or along with, children or any other person within their own permitted areas. I don't really think chasing is the issue here, I think the issue is really appropriate contact with humans. And I'm not sure an e-collar would be the best way to teach that.
Again, I may be totally off on the way this works, but to me, an e-collar would be best used for situations that don't have so many variables.

[Adina P]

I see what you're saying and I agree. Running in, itself, is totally OK. I was thinking the way it would be BEST used (the ecollar that is) is simply as a trained correction for not following a command in a high distraction environment. So, for instance, if Emma was called to recall when she saw a mud puddle and she didn't immediately spin around to "Emma, COME!" then she would receive the stimulus until she got into recall position. So it would be a stronger impetus to respond in order to avoid the stim...that's typically the obedience way to use it and I would think the most realistic way to use the ecollar for child chasing: By not using it directly to correct 'bad', but giving a stronger reason TO obey commands. Does NOT remove the difficulty of training but makes corrections consistent (if consistently applied) whereas a collar correction might be stronger or softer or whatever. AND Emma, I imagine, couldn't just go from current level of training to throwing her in with kids and an ecollar.

Punishment is trying to forever stop a behavior. This is what one would want if you NEVER wanted a dog to jump on someone, run out the front door, and so on. Things that are NEVER okay and/or possibly dangerous. Corrections, in my understanding, are not quite the same. A correction for getting up from a sit stay isn't intended to convince a dog to never get up. The goal is to remind the dog what "correct" is (remain sitting) and provide an undesireable consequence to getting up from a sit (when given a sit stay command) make remaining sitting the best choice. Using the e-collar in obedience, I like better (theoretically since I've never USED one) because the dog has a positive option to do. Whereas merely using it to tell the dog "NO" is tougher I would think because there is no 'YES' option the dog has in its repertoire.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

This makes perfect sense to me, and I thank you for the explanation!

[F, Calla & Luca]

Both of you have made good points. I agree that using the e collar to stop a dog from a normal behavior, running, doesn't make sense and might make the dog leery of children. Some neighbor children became frightened of Luca when they were 6 year old twins. They came into my yard to play with him. I tried to explain that squealing and running from him would result in his getting excited and thinking it was a game. He was still a puppy and ran after them and jumped on one. It took a year, during which they avoided him, but now Luca and the girls are more mature and interact well. I do think the collar is primarily to be used as a corrective device for following commands. That is how we used it, on vibration, in class. After I finish the DVD, I'll see if Ed Frawley agrees. I know he states it is no substitute for obedience training. Calla ignored my command to come the last time she escaped. I really believe she can calculate when I'm far enough away for her to make a clean break. The gate is now temporarily reinforced and so far so good. The handyman is due next week for a more permanent fix. My plan is not to work on preventing her from leaving with the collar but on getting her to come reliably.