The purpose of this study is to improve is to specifically elucidate a procedure of effective ecollar use that doesn’t create the same fallouts with previous studies. This is very important. As now future studies and research that builds on this will now have a reference for effective ecollar use. So we should no longer see studies that use the ecollar non contingently or change up the contingencies to make it less effective and cause intentional fallout and say “see ecollar bad”. Because now publishers can cite a scientific study that clearly shows a procedure that doesn’t cause those pitfalls. This is very important.
You should look at the peer reviews for this study in the “review report” section. Additionally the author also had a podcast episode on this study on Apple Podcasts called “how to train dogs with love and science” which is a pretty cool listen.
@@paulboateng7521 bringing up that none of the other studies had contingencies for usage of the ecollar is a point I hadn’t fully thought of and one that definitely highlights a key with this one! I do believe this one lacks any depth regarding studying fallout past an observation in the moment. I’ll look into the podcast though! I wasn’t aware of that!
I have done this type of training with an e collar countless times when someone adopts a dog and they trying to kill the cat. One or two act of God corrections goes a long way. I've done this with my own rescue dogs too
👏🏻 Great job in digging deep into the details of this research experience and explaining why they got their results results that they got. I agree with you most people read the conclusion, (IF) this this research study was done correctly the researchers will point out attributes that they would implement on a future study. I have a background in research and as the saying, go stats, don’t lie statisticians do or research doesn’t lie researchers do, there is a confirmation bias that these studies inherently have..
@@MiracleK9Training yes we call it dirty research or dirty researchers. The social scientists would get reamed for their obvious confirmation bias, lack of neutrality.
I agree and that is a good point to keep in mind. It likely would be impossible to create a study that factors in EVERY variable. All of these should be looked at as various individual pieces of the conversation.
You skipped all the good stuff 😂. Force free or whoever could say what they want, but as someone in research (and in Az 😜) you can't change parameters for each group. If you're going to test something, the parameters need to remain the same. The controls need to remain the same. So, saying that Group B or C should have had more time to make it fair would have negated the study. After reading the full study I actually give them kudos for holding parameters and variables the way they did. Regardless of trainers present it remains valid if you maintain criteria and they did a decent job of that, I just think the question/title doesn't align for what the study produced. I agree that if we're talking efficacy of training methods that long-term studies need to be done but you also have to have a baseline so this is a good baseline, at least. Now if we were using the study to look at potential fall out of adverse events, I would say there's a strong argument that dispells that concept, especially for those who believe single use adversive will do that. And perhaps that's the valuable information in this study.
so i do realize that i skipped the end wrap up where they actually discussed most of the concerns that I had brought up. Doesn't really change much as they acknowledged it but didn't really provide a solution or reason why even with those there's is THAT persuasive. Nonetheless i did a part two to this podcast today and read the rest and gave my two sense on some of these points you brought up in this comment.
@MiracleK9Training there are always limitations and challenges, part of the objective of research is to acknowledge it, it's not always to provide a course of action, that's usually up to the person who wants to take the baton and further probe or advance the knowledge pool. I actually think they did a beautiful job of laying out the data, its a simple study yet shows some great things to glean from it: the response to collar v. No collar and effectiveness in at least short term, which was very clear. It also appears they did a fair job of conditioning group b and c, c appears to be the control for group b. Stress response, perceived stress, and how there infact was no significant difference among all 3 groups is very telling to the welfare portion of this study title. Overall, I don't think you can shit on this too much. It was thought out, controlled, and areas of contention acknowledge, and even those were minor considering live animals study🤙🏽
@@Lil_Kumquat no intent to shit on it by any means. I just dont know how much "new data" that it really provides is kinda my issue. additionally as i point out in the part two i just made i feel like some of these issues had fairly easy work arounds to them to make it a bit more sound.
@MiracleK9Training fair enough. But because of the current state of training, it's a baseline that needed to be done. And it's new 😆 for all those who like to claim there isn't new research 🤙🏽
@@CharlieTheCaneCorso the study is not for people that use ecollars to reassure them. The study is to have something to stand on and fight against potential legislation.
@@CharlieTheCaneCorso yup, partially because of the hard work of people like Jamie who deeply understand the studies and flaws in them and can argue in clear scientific fact. This study further helps people like him
Well, if something is dangerous like my dog running across the street to chase a deer everyone knows the way we really learn IS with correction giving treats even the highest end traits does not compete with the dogs instinct to chase The average person is not gonna take months and months and months to train a dog not to chase the average pet owner is going to give up on the dog There is a thin line with using an e collar or not I use it on certain behaviors and certain dogs All dogs are not the same.
To me, this is just so obvious that the dog would need corrections to stop this behavior. I think it’s nonsense to try to stop this behavior without letting the dog know. It’s doing wrong instead of giving the dog a cookie when it looks at you and I’m not a total balance s dog trainer. I’d say I’m more of a positive dog trainer that does use corrections when needed.
for me just constantly reinforcing (just with a leash and harness) what we do with my dog seems to work. we walk to the street and I make him sit and wait then we cross if we need to. I do this on every walk and now he wont even set a foot on the road without me saying ok lets go. my dog is never really off leash and is on a long line or flexi. he loves to chase bikes and joggers is why. I need to get this dog a flirt pole so he can chase that instead. there are some things that you just cant risk which is why i like the back up of the long line. and btw i dont use treats when training most of the time nor do i rely on corrections too much.
@@angelinacamacho8575 but you kinda just told on your self. What you’re doing absolutely does not work or your dog would not chase bikes or joggers anymore and you would not feel trapped always using a leash
It's a good start but you are correct with your critique. I live in a country with all those bans took place already. This study won't change anything but it shines light on the truth. A long-term study could have impact. One that shows that a dog trained p+ only to stop him from chasing has WAY more stress and cortisol caused by the training than a dog that was trained via p+. It's not only that the dog needs to be leashed longer and thus can't be free and express himself but cortisol also has horrible effects on health. To me using p+ only to stop a dog from chasing (which is forbidden here too) is way more inhumane than using an e-collar which doesn't bother the dog if used correctly. And a long-term study showing that would be great. Due to the bans I had to use mainly p+ methods (okay, I also used a few leash corrections but only in over the top situations). I got all my dogs not to chase anything and they were crazy hunters (Shiba, Akita, GSD). The recall is easy and works perfect with p+ but getting a dog not to chase by default (without using a command) is hard and literally takes forever. It took me 3 years with my Akita to be reliable. A hare recently ran over her feet while she was redting and she didn't even look after it but it was 3 years of her life that she could've been free and less stressed if e-collars weren't banned
@@loyal_dogs I agree regarding needing much more studied before people take it too seriously. It’s frustrating when we KNOW how beneficial these can be for this kind of stuff but we need to bend over backwards to try to prove it in a way that “they like”.
@antjea.3105 can you please tell me where I said that? I’ll need the context because I absolutely do not subscribe to ecollars being non aversive in any context.
@antjea.3105 wait, are you replying to the original commenter? I see it in theirs. And if you look at the context of what they are saying they are very obviously referring to the “long term” stress impacts of the tool. Not the use of the tool in the moment. That was a big thing they were attempting to study in this article.
The study points out the obvious for anyone who functions in the real world and understands actions, reactions and consequences. But yeah know some people don't live in reality, so while the outcomes may be common sense if you are even the slightest observant, there are those who need this in writing and even then may not accept it.
1:07:06 Could have had a better trainer: like whom? Ivan asked around, he made this whole thing very public. He even asked ZG. No one showed up. I cannot figure out why...
@@MiracleK9Training well, to me the study has left out a key approach to effectively control a dogs forward movement. Because I’ve reached out to Ivan (his people that handle his fb messages anyway) many times to point out this approach and like most trainers I’ve gotten no response, it just all ends up looking fishy after a while. I’ve been examining this for 20 years. I’m suspicious that most things that are mainstream, are scams in general. So, in the study Ivan proposes the use of electric collars to stop forward movement, which proves effective. Which, of course is effective, but is it the right approach? Then, to me it comes across as cheating to say, now look at this FF approach and we’ll judge which one is more effective. I’m not a professional basketball player but if you put me up against someone in middle school I’ll look pretty good, but I’m not not “NBA Good”. Actually I was close in my day. To me, he, and most trainers that use tools, are avoiding the elephant in the room, that you do not need a physical tool to stop forward movement. There is a relationship factor there too, which I think isn’t promoted enough, but to do it non physically, it forces people to focus on the relationship through the environment they have imposed on the dog. Dogs never asked to be confined behind walls and on leashes constantly. We owe them more respect. I don’t mean this towards you. I don’t agree with tools in general, but I watch ALOT of your content and respect your work. I’m just trying to put my finger on this 2 camp system (2 party system) pet owners and pet dogs are stuck in, and paying a big cost.
@@MiracleK9Training But perhaps it would be helpful to advocate for minimum training by approved trainers before people can purchase and use the collar? Similar to being tested and receiving a licence to drive using your analogy. Is see so many people with e collars on young puppies. I do worry about the long term outcome on these dogs. I occasionally talk to these people and there is redirection happening.
@@mderksen4432 nope, not necessarily. Because we have TONS of people who successfully implement collars using solely our youtube videos. The risk of "misuse" is very minimal and hardly a long term issue at all.
Just as a disclaimer, I have not watched the video yet. It is so strange to me how people on both sides of this argument are acting like this one study is supposed to prove anything. That's not how science works. Nothing is proven until these kinds of tests are replicable. I also think the way this study was set up was not ideal, though it did set out to prove that you could stop behavior without additional lasting damage. That is an important fact that is missing from a lot of the other previous studies that were done on punishment. This is just one small piece of a very large puzzle. Personally I do not think that you can ever really scientifically prove things that relate to behavior in psychology because it is complex and can never be truly replicated because of the free will of the individuals involved and the inability to control for all factors.
my issue with mainly is when it comes to the public. a lot of people are scared of off leash dogs and to them an e collar looks like a flat collar from a distance. so imagine someone's monster sized dog running up to you and you have no idea how much control the owner has over it for the simple fact that you dont see a leash. the issue with any rapid method is that we dont know what long term psychological effects it could have on a dog or even a person for that matter.
@@angelinacamacho8575 the first issue with this statement is that an owner should be ensuring their dog isn’t running up to random people wether they have a leash on or not.
There is alot of backlash from the force free community about this study unsurprisingly , i think it would be great if you got some of them on the podcast to debate. i doubt they will though, they feel far safer hiding in Zak George's comments section lol
If i'm being totally honest I dont know how much there is to debate. I actually think this study has a lot of flaws myself. I'm not sure if you watched the whole episode but i was pretty critical of it.
@@MiracleK9Training yea I watched it and appreciate your actual non biased approach. Your criticism is valid, however I’d say that the point of the study was to conduct a like for like comparison. We both know however that there is a lot more nuance that goes into force free and balanced training. I think the study is to attempt to distill down to a core question. What’s more efficient/effective. If the criticism is well it takes longer for the force free the dogs and they need a ball or they need the lure to be running slower or more time to practice etc etc, then whilst alls those points may well be valid, it still proves that the balance method was more effective and efficient, additionally if we granted the force free group those extra parameters then, we start moving away from a alike for like comparison or we have to give the e-collar group similar considerations and then the study starts becoming somewhat broader in scope. Your criticisms of the study I think bring up some other questions that should be explored in other study’s. Again though, let’s be honest, if you have trained dogs long enough we already know. I suspect Ivan will do a video on it at some point, so will be interesting to hear him speak about it
@@guiltybyassociation1764 I understand that logic for sure. I think time and effectiveness are both factors that need to be considered and put realistic expectations on though. 3 days of training for either is a ridiculously short standard to have. But yes, I do believe i understand his goal in it and can see that side as well.
@@MiracleK9Training totally agree, I’d love to see a study done over a longer period of time. I still think the conclusion would be the same but the results would be slightly different. The force free group would for sure have more successful (or at least something approximating success) subjects. But then so would increase the success rate of the balanced subjects.
@@guiltybyassociation1764 I agree. I think one that give a little more “assistance” to the force free side would have given the end result more weight.
![fellow fellow - พรุ่งนี้ไม่มีใครรู้ feat. INK WARUNTORN [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QP6JyjYx_W0/mqdefault.jpg)
The purpose of this study is to improve is to specifically elucidate a procedure of effective ecollar use that doesn’t create the same fallouts with previous studies. This is very important. As now future studies and research that builds on this will now have a reference for effective ecollar use. So we should no longer see studies that use the ecollar non contingently or change up the contingencies to make it less effective and cause intentional fallout and say “see ecollar bad”. Because now publishers can cite a scientific study that clearly shows a procedure that doesn’t cause those pitfalls. This is very important.
You should look at the peer reviews for this study in the “review report” section. Additionally the author also had a podcast episode on this study on Apple Podcasts called “how to train dogs with love and science” which is a pretty cool listen.
@@paulboateng7521 bringing up that none of the other studies had contingencies for usage of the ecollar is a point I hadn’t fully thought of and one that definitely highlights a key with this one! I do believe this one lacks any depth regarding studying fallout past an observation in the moment. I’ll look into the podcast though! I wasn’t aware of that!
Great episode. Thanks for going through this with such thoroughness.
@@c1ssalc glad you found it helpful!
I have done this type of training with an e collar countless times when someone adopts a dog and they trying to kill the cat. One or two act of God corrections goes a long way. I've done this with my own rescue dogs too
it can be extremely easy to stop some of those things for sure.
👏🏻 Great job in digging deep into the details of this research experience and explaining why they got their results results that they got. I agree with you most people read the conclusion, (IF) this this research study was done correctly the researchers will point out attributes that they would implement on a future study. I have a background in research and as the saying, go stats, don’t lie statisticians do or research doesn’t lie researchers do, there is a confirmation bias that these studies inherently have..
@@StarkK9Academy absolutely the case. You can set up ANY study to prove just about whatever you want if you “bend” it enough.
@@MiracleK9Training yes we call it dirty research or dirty researchers. The social scientists would get reamed for their obvious confirmation bias, lack of neutrality.
Good analysis. Most studies have flaws and research is basically just looking at one aspect of a problem.
I agree and that is a good point to keep in mind. It likely would be impossible to create a study that factors in EVERY variable. All of these should be looked at as various individual pieces of the conversation.
You skipped all the good stuff 😂. Force free or whoever could say what they want, but as someone in research (and in Az 😜) you can't change parameters for each group. If you're going to test something, the parameters need to remain the same. The controls need to remain the same. So, saying that Group B or C should have had more time to make it fair would have negated the study. After reading the full study I actually give them kudos for holding parameters and variables the way they did. Regardless of trainers present it remains valid if you maintain criteria and they did a decent job of that, I just think the question/title doesn't align for what the study produced.
I agree that if we're talking efficacy of training methods that long-term studies need to be done but you also have to have a baseline so this is a good baseline, at least. Now if we were using the study to look at potential fall out of adverse events, I would say there's a strong argument that dispells that concept, especially for those who believe single use adversive will do that. And perhaps that's the valuable information in this study.
so i do realize that i skipped the end wrap up where they actually discussed most of the concerns that I had brought up. Doesn't really change much as they acknowledged it but didn't really provide a solution or reason why even with those there's is THAT persuasive. Nonetheless i did a part two to this podcast today and read the rest and gave my two sense on some of these points you brought up in this comment.
@MiracleK9Training there are always limitations and challenges, part of the objective of research is to acknowledge it, it's not always to provide a course of action, that's usually up to the person who wants to take the baton and further probe or advance the knowledge pool. I actually think they did a beautiful job of laying out the data, its a simple study yet shows some great things to glean from it: the response to collar v. No collar and effectiveness in at least short term, which was very clear. It also appears they did a fair job of conditioning group b and c, c appears to be the control for group b. Stress response, perceived stress, and how there infact was no significant difference among all 3 groups is very telling to the welfare portion of this study title. Overall, I don't think you can shit on this too much. It was thought out, controlled, and areas of contention acknowledge, and even those were minor considering live animals study🤙🏽
@@Lil_Kumquat no intent to shit on it by any means. I just dont know how much "new data" that it really provides is kinda my issue. additionally as i point out in the part two i just made i feel like some of these issues had fairly easy work arounds to them to make it a bit more sound.
@MiracleK9Training fair enough. But because of the current state of training, it's a baseline that needed to be done. And it's new 😆 for all those who like to claim there isn't new research 🤙🏽
@@Lil_Kumquat I can absolutely agree with that
I didn't need a study it's pretty obvious to me the ecollar is the greatest invention in dog training...... Wireless leash
@@CharlieTheCaneCorso the study is not for people that use ecollars to reassure them. The study is to have something to stand on and fight against potential legislation.
@@MiracleK9Training in the UK we just avoided a ecollar ban in February
I don't understand why we care about idiots opinions, even if we have a ban I'll continue to be a ecollar user regardless, freeeedom
@@CharlieTheCaneCorso yup, partially because of the hard work of people like Jamie who deeply understand the studies and flaws in them and can argue in clear scientific fact. This study further helps people like him
@@MiracleK9Training penrith.. Jamie?
Excited
enjoy!
Well, if something is dangerous like my dog running across the street to chase a deer everyone knows the way we really learn IS with correction giving treats even the highest end traits does not compete with the dogs instinct to chase The average person is not gonna take months and months and months to train a dog not to chase
the average pet owner is going to give up on the dog
There is a thin line with using an e collar or not
I use it on certain behaviors and certain dogs
All dogs are not the same.
I obviously agree with this statement completely. If you watch the episode i'm just critical of how it was set up.
To me, this is just so obvious that the dog would need corrections to stop this behavior. I think it’s nonsense to try to stop this behavior without letting the dog know. It’s doing wrong instead of giving the dog a cookie when it looks at you and I’m not a total balance s dog trainer. I’d say I’m more of a positive dog trainer that does use corrections when needed.
@@watchmoivies123 i agree completely. I find it a bit baffling that it gets debated to this day lol.
for me just constantly reinforcing (just with a leash and harness) what we do with my dog seems to work. we walk to the street and I make him sit and wait then we cross if we need to. I do this on every walk and now he wont even set a foot on the road without me saying ok lets go. my dog is never really off leash and is on a long line or flexi. he loves to chase bikes and joggers is why. I need to get this dog a flirt pole so he can chase that instead. there are some things that you just cant risk which is why i like the back up of the long line. and btw i dont use treats when training most of the time nor do i rely on corrections too much.
@@angelinacamacho8575 but you kinda just told on your self. What you’re doing absolutely does not work or your dog would not chase bikes or joggers anymore and you would not feel trapped always using a leash
It's a good start but you are correct with your critique. I live in a country with all those bans took place already. This study won't change anything but it shines light on the truth. A long-term study could have impact. One that shows that a dog trained p+ only to stop him from chasing has WAY more stress and cortisol caused by the training than a dog that was trained via p+. It's not only that the dog needs to be leashed longer and thus can't be free and express himself but cortisol also has horrible effects on health. To me using p+ only to stop a dog from chasing (which is forbidden here too) is way more inhumane than using an e-collar which doesn't bother the dog if used correctly. And a long-term study showing that would be great. Due to the bans I had to use mainly p+ methods (okay, I also used a few leash corrections but only in over the top situations). I got all my dogs not to chase anything and they were crazy hunters (Shiba, Akita, GSD). The recall is easy and works perfect with p+ but getting a dog not to chase by default (without using a command) is hard and literally takes forever. It took me 3 years with my Akita to be reliable. A hare recently ran over her feet while she was redting and she didn't even look after it but it was 3 years of her life that she could've been free and less stressed if e-collars weren't banned
@@loyal_dogs I agree regarding needing much more studied before people take it too seriously. It’s frustrating when we KNOW how beneficial these can be for this kind of stuff but we need to bend over backwards to try to prove it in a way that “they like”.
@antjea.3105 can you please tell me where I said that? I’ll need the context because I absolutely do not subscribe to ecollars being non aversive in any context.
@antjea.3105 wait, are you replying to the original commenter? I see it in theirs. And if you look at the context of what they are saying they are very obviously referring to the “long term” stress impacts of the tool. Not the use of the tool in the moment. That was a big thing they were attempting to study in this article.
Ivan actually invited Zak George to participate as the force free trainer in this experiment but Zak refused.
yup. no one is surprised there haha.
Ya you know that we already know what works . The study is not for us dog guys
@@gerdberg4188 lol no but it is for people that are going to be just as critical of it as I am
4:11 so , was it a boring study for Ivan , he already knew the outcome !
The study points out the obvious for anyone who functions in the real world and understands actions, reactions and consequences. But yeah know some people don't live in reality, so while the outcomes may be common sense if you are even the slightest observant, there are those who need this in writing and even then may not accept it.
@@gerdberg4188 agreed. But having it on paper gives it a touch more “weight”
1:07:06 Could have had a better trainer: like whom? Ivan asked around, he made this whole thing very public. He even asked ZG. No one showed up. I cannot figure out why...
Great episode btw
I completely agree with you. That is a major problem is the lack of people willing to step up to be tested in this regard.
Ohh David🤦♂️ I’m shocked lol
@@dogwalkrehab150 shocked by what? lol
@@MiracleK9Training well, to me the study has left out a key approach to effectively control a dogs forward movement. Because I’ve reached out to Ivan (his people that handle his fb messages anyway) many times to point out this approach and like most trainers I’ve gotten no response, it just all ends up looking fishy after a while. I’ve been examining this for 20 years. I’m suspicious that most things that are mainstream, are scams in general.
So, in the study Ivan proposes the use of electric collars to stop forward movement, which proves effective. Which, of course is effective, but is it the right approach? Then, to me it comes across as cheating to say, now look at this FF approach and we’ll judge which one is more effective. I’m not a professional basketball player but if you put me up against someone in middle school I’ll look pretty good, but I’m not not “NBA Good”. Actually I was close in my day.
To me, he, and most trainers that use tools, are avoiding the elephant in the room, that you do not need a physical tool to stop forward movement. There is a relationship factor there too, which I think isn’t promoted enough, but to do it non physically, it forces people to focus on the relationship through the environment they have imposed on the dog. Dogs never asked to be confined behind walls and on leashes constantly. We owe them more respect. I don’t mean this towards you. I don’t agree with tools in general, but I watch ALOT of your content and respect your work. I’m just trying to put my finger on this 2 camp system (2 party system) pet owners and pet dogs are stuck in, and paying a big cost.
@@MiracleK9Training deleted?
@@dogwalkrehab150 I’m confused. What’s deleted?
@@MiracleK9Training i wrote a comment here responding to why I was shocked. Oh well
19:46 I see a lot of people doing things that they do not know how to do correctly
@@gerdberg4188 that is true. But we’re only so in control of that lol
@@MiracleK9Training
But perhaps it would be helpful to advocate for minimum training by approved trainers before people can purchase and use the collar? Similar to being tested and receiving a licence to drive using your analogy. Is see so many people with e collars on young puppies. I do worry about the long term outcome on these dogs. I occasionally talk to these people and there is redirection happening.
@@mderksen4432 nope, not necessarily. Because we have TONS of people who successfully implement collars using solely our youtube videos. The risk of "misuse" is very minimal and hardly a long term issue at all.
Just as a disclaimer, I have not watched the video yet. It is so strange to me how people on both sides of this argument are acting like this one study is supposed to prove anything. That's not how science works. Nothing is proven until these kinds of tests are replicable. I also think the way this study was set up was not ideal, though it did set out to prove that you could stop behavior without additional lasting damage. That is an important fact that is missing from a lot of the other previous studies that were done on punishment.
This is just one small piece of a very large puzzle. Personally I do not think that you can ever really scientifically prove things that relate to behavior in psychology because it is complex and can never be truly replicated because of the free will of the individuals involved and the inability to control for all factors.
watch the video haha. We're probably much more in agreement than you think.
my issue with mainly is when it comes to the public. a lot of people are scared of off leash dogs and to them an e collar looks like a flat collar from a distance. so imagine someone's monster sized dog running up to you and you have no idea how much control the owner has over it for the simple fact that you dont see a leash. the issue with any rapid method is that we dont know what long term psychological effects it could have on a dog or even a person for that matter.
@@angelinacamacho8575 the first issue with this statement is that an owner should be ensuring their dog isn’t running up to random people wether they have a leash on or not.
There is alot of backlash from the force free community about this study unsurprisingly , i think it would be great if you got some of them on the podcast to debate. i doubt they will though, they feel far safer hiding in Zak George's comments section lol
If i'm being totally honest I dont know how much there is to debate. I actually think this study has a lot of flaws myself. I'm not sure if you watched the whole episode but i was pretty critical of it.
@@MiracleK9Training yea I watched it and appreciate your actual non biased approach. Your criticism is valid, however I’d say that the point of the study was to conduct a like for like comparison. We both know however that there is a lot more nuance that goes into force free and balanced training. I think the study is to attempt to distill down to a core question. What’s more efficient/effective. If the criticism is well it takes longer for the force free the dogs and they need a ball or they need the lure to be running slower or more time to practice etc etc, then whilst alls those points may well be valid, it still proves that the balance method was more effective and efficient, additionally if we granted the force free group those extra parameters then, we start moving away from a alike for like comparison or we have to give the e-collar group similar considerations and then the study starts becoming somewhat broader in scope. Your criticisms of the study I think bring up some other questions that should be explored in other study’s. Again though, let’s be honest, if you have trained dogs long enough we already know.
I suspect Ivan will do a video on it at some point, so will be interesting to hear him speak about it
@@guiltybyassociation1764 I understand that logic for sure. I think time and effectiveness are both factors that need to be considered and put realistic expectations on though. 3 days of training for either is a ridiculously short standard to have. But yes, I do believe i understand his goal in it and can see that side as well.
@@MiracleK9Training totally agree, I’d love to see a study done over a longer period of time. I still think the conclusion would be the same but the results would be slightly different. The force free group would for sure have more successful (or at least something approximating success) subjects. But then so would increase the success rate of the balanced subjects.
@@guiltybyassociation1764 I agree. I think one that give a little more “assistance” to the force free side would have given the end result more weight.