If you've enjoyed this video please like, comment & share 🙂 It really helps! Study linked here: www.mdpi.com/2951172 ►👀 WATCH NEXT: * Understanding Dog Training Methods (Operant Conditioning): th-cam.com/video/A6YYViqEFbw/w-d-xo.html * Are Force Free Dog Trainers Close-Minded? (My opinion): th-cam.com/video/SaYDCuBD5Fc/w-d-xo.html * Why Do I Make *FREE* Force Free Dog Training Tutorials?: th-cam.com/video/Y3n0qdeP_gU/w-d-xo.html * STOP Animal Chasing: Complete Dog Prey Drive Tutorial: th-cam.com/video/A7D9tE40xoE/w-d-xo.html
This is great. I was also thinking of reviewing this paper (and I like going deep into controversial topics) so thank you for saving me the time. Good job.
Thank you for the review and comprehensive and easy to understand breakdown. I personally want to also thank you and admire you for having the courage to put yourself at risk for some really negative input from the shock community. Even though he is going to deny it Ivan has conclusvily debunked the myth that shock collars don't hurt so that's kind of an upside to this nonsense.
I suspect for the crowd that used shock collars prior to this study, my review will do nothing. But for people that are sitting on the fence about methods and might see the headline and supposed “results”, I wanted to share why I think this study is a sham.
Thank you for doing this video while caring for your newborn! This study is like everytime I watch an aversive trainer talking about reinforcement based training (bashing it), I can see that they have absolutely no understanding of how behavior works. You did a wonderful job at explaining it clearly and simply for people that aren't professional 👏
You're welcome! I did have a clip where I'd said "This study was seemingly only testing whether shock collar trainers know how to use treats to change a behaviour, and the conclusion was no" but I thought it was a little too snarky and cut it out 😂
Thank you for this great video. It is very detailed but you managed to keep it very simple. I also like how professionnal you remain despite the bad faith of the authors. Anyway, thanks a lot !
@@parley1994 it's true. i hope that, now, the people who were lied to by punitive trainers (who charge thousands!!!) saying that the collars don't cause pain can now see it - the "top" people using aversives have put it in writing, so it can't be denied thru rose colored glasses anymore. even if just those people realize they've been scammed by these trainers because they only accepted under the guise that it couldn't *not* be ethical... these videos breaking it down are worth it! as for those who are loud and proud about their enjoyment of utilizing aversives and punishment - we were never gonna mesh with that mindset anyway.
When I started my dog training school in 1992 , in South Africa - I called it Happy Hounds, so I LOVE your school name! Cool! (I changed it several times since then ! ) Anyway - thanks for speaking out about this "Stuffy" and dont let the agro ones get you down! I have in my life, at my home, a very messed up dog, that is used as the standard for justification of using shock, prong and blah blah - and he has learned to listen absolutely and totally to me WITHOUT any of those, and with just happy, kind and positive training - no pain, no threats (he will seriously not enjoy that and that is what started his issue in the first place) and he walks in a harness (oh the horror - and of course, if i wanted to, I could hurt him with that - sure - but I wont because I simply do NOT want to hurt anything - ever). No one is actually debating whether using a shock collar stops an action (ie "works) but the LONG TERM EFFECTS are NOT spoken of - from actual aggressive responses to simple shut down). Try get a shut down dog to engage in self thinking for example. It is very sad that we have come to a place where we are actually debating this to start with. 30 plus years of FF training and still the same arguments. GO GIRL! You rock! Love the DogGuruSA
Massive thank you! This made me happy to read 😊 I fully agree- it's a comparison of apples to oranges. Whether a method makes a dog temporarily act the way WE want them to (especially when that's in the opposite way of how we've bred them to act, but that's a whole other discussion) cannot be the whole "debate". Long term effects and changes to quality of life need to be considered. There's a saying that if we're constantly pulling people out of the river we need to move upstream and see why they're falling in.... I feel like that applies so heavily to the dog training method debate.
I heard about this "study". As soon as I learned that Ivan Blah-blah-blahnov was involved, the entire thing lost credibility to me. That guy would slap an E-collar on his mom if it earned him a medal
@@happyhoundsdogtraining I actually hope Ivan is ok. After this study was done, the 11 dogs that he didn't have the opportunity to bless with his holy ecollar shocks were damned to die in traffic, be shot, die of starvation, loneliness, hurricanes, and/or lightning. I don't know how he can live with himself knowing he let them go without shocking them at LEAST once. Or more than 20.
@@tedppI’m sure he’ll do a podcast about this very subject and how his superior scientific knowledge and dog training expertise makes him the bestest dog shocker, oh wait 😂
Thank you for taking the time to do this video. It's very well done, easy to follow and sums up the "study" perfectly. I hope it reaches people who are prepared to shock their dogs and makes them think about using kinder methods instead! Very well done lovey lady ❤
Excellent video. Thank you for deciding to make it after all! I was familiar with the backwards training but there were so many other errors I did not yet know about.
Thanks! I tried to talk myself out of making it because it felt like a lot to take on with a new kiddo, but eventually decided it was important enough that I wanted to voice my concerns 😊
Thanks for your sacrifice. We need more people like you who can read scientific papers to speak up. I myself absolutely hate reading papers so I appreciate this summary very much! Unfortunately I made the mistake of wading into the $hit$torm of the comments section in Mr Ecollar's page, and I saw the shifting of the goal posts...they're claiming that "yelping" is not due to pain (when Mr Ecollar himself wrote in the study that it's a "pain induced yelp") and that "all FF research is flawed" (yes there is no perfect study, but I'm sure whatever FF/R+ research that has been done is miles better than this one) (after that I blocked his page to force myself to stop haha)
Ooof, y’all are wildly closed minded. Ivan is the GOAT. “Discomfort over death” is not unkind you psychopaths. Laying on a cold table awaiting death bc you chase squirrels is ludicrous.
Lol “discomfort over death” is a false dichotomy that people use when they’re grasping at straws trying to justify continuing to use abusive training. As Ivan’s OWN study states: there’s no data to support any claims that rewards based training in any way leads to a dogs death. Thanks for the engagement though!
All studies have limitations for sure! That’s why each paper is required to discuss them. This study had more holes than Swiss cheese though 😂 and the “results” the authors claim in the abstract are a WILD stretch from their actual data set… hard not to see it as anything but incredibly biased.
@@brentnathan8069 it's pretty unkind when there are positive methods to address the underlying emotion driving chasing behavior as well as training a different automatic response to the stimulus. it's a shame when someone doesn't want to troubleshoot what they might be doing wrong, and to make up for their skill gap, they reach for an aversive. dog training is a beautiful, inspiring place when you get off of the balanced algorithm.
@@brentnathan8069 Ah, here's one of them, peddling the oft-repeated argument that aversive training is required for difficult dogs. I'm not going to bother trying to argue with you because you'll just shift the goal posts, yet again.
Thanks for this "review" (maybe evisceration?) of this... "Scientific paper". I'm admittedly one of the people who read the first page, rolled my eyes in the general direction of the IF YOU DON'T USE AN ECOLLAR YOUR DOG IS GOING TO DIE crowd, and didn't bother going through the rest of it. Your video made me actually read the entire thing. One more interesting thing I noticed in terms of the welfare claims part was under the ethical considerations section at the end of the paper. They really do make pretty grandiose claims about dogs being given up to shelters, shot by livestock owners, and being euthanized; but also quietly say directly afterwards that they have no data on how often this actually happens. You can't claim welfare is improved if you can't show anything at ALL proving that this is actually happening on any kind of noteworthy scale.
This study was probably published through MDPI because other scholarly journals rejected it. Terrific break down - I’ll be sure to share your video to get the message out!
Thank you for your review of this 'study'. The fact that this travestly was paid for by the Wexner Fund, the head of which is an IGP competitor, as is Ivan Balabanov (the trainer on the study who trained the second trainer on the study) who on his podcast with Clive Wynne, one of the authors of the study, said that he would do what he could to find the approximate $100k required to fund such a 'study' means that the claim of there being no conflict of interest may require further investigation.
THANK YOU!! You just helped put some final puzzle pieces together for me. After noticing all of the biases (despite the so called “no conflict of interest”) I was really curious why a foundation would fund this. Your comment unfortunately clears up a lot. If it wasn’t MDPI (did you see the submission date versus publication date? Wowza) I can’t imagine any paper being willing to publish this as it’s so wildly inappropriate.
@happyhoundsdogtraining No idea. Maybe if someone is patient enough time dig through his posts / podcasts, someone like Dr. Orion can use it as evidence
18:17 - yeah, you can tell Ivan didn't ask positive gundog trainers to participate in the studies. That camp has no problem disproving ecollar users in their own spaces. He was too busy beefing with Zak George.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining I remember Ivan complaining no one would accept his offer to participate in this study. And it's like, bro, not every positive reinforcement trainers talk to each others. You're too obsessed with Zak George!
all this proved is that I.B. doesn't understand how rewards training works or willfully designed the whole training plan to set up rewards to fail. I think it's incredibly embarrassing for C.W. to have attached himself to this garbage study. if it is indeed a part of a student PhD thing.....then this student needs better help in crafting their studies. YIKES all around.
Agreed. It was basically testing whether shock collar trainers know how to inhibit chasing behaviours using rewards, and apparently the answer is no. How the trainers being unable (or unwilling) to being stretched to “rewards don’t work” is beyond me. And then to claim 100% success in the abstract while failing to mention that 25% of the group didn’t respond to the intervention and was excluded? Yikes. I’m shocked anyone with a degree put their name on this, and even more so that no conflicts of interest were admitted.
@happyhoundsdogtraining *rears head from the smoldering battleground of the Claire Wade vs Kateriina Mäki debate* I got war stories to tell you. I have seen things no one should have to see
Before saying what IB (aka Ivan Balabanov) does or does not understand, read his titles that I copypasted here. World Champion - International Dog Federation (FCI) All Breeds IPO3. World Champion - Belgian Shepherd World Federation (FMBB) IPO3. 7 x National Champion American Working Dog Federation (AWDF) IPO3. 7 x National Champion American Working Malinois Association (AWMA) IPO3. National Champion United Schutzhund Clubs of America German Shepherds IPO3. 2021 DVG America National Champion IPO 3 2000 FMBB Homburg,Germany Belgian Shepherd World Vice Champion 2000 DVG America All Breeds Nationals IPO 3 Champion 1999 DVG America All Breeds Nationals IPO 3 Champion 1998 DVG America All Breeds Nationals IPO 3 Champion
@bartsimpson208 none of those titles prove he knows how to properly utilize R+ *without any intentional application of aversives*. he used aversives to accomplish all of them
Thank you for taking this on. Is this journal, Animals, even a peer-reviewed journal? Never heard of it before. I had been toying with the idea of moving to AZ to get a doctorate in animal behavior at the U of AZ - no more. Have totally lost respect for Clive Wynne.
It’s published in MDPI, which has made predatory lists before for being a “pay to play” journal. I suspect the authors choosing that one speaks volumes about knowing whether other journals would accept it. Honestly I’m surprised to see researchers put their name on something with so much bias and issues.
It is peer-reviewed, but lower barrier to entry. Usually a journal whuch gets submitted to if the other prestigious institutes reject the paper. There's an editor who stated there's nothing wrong with publishing for MDPI, just lower on the list of preferences.
I do not think you are harsh. Not at all. I am harsh. :'D I mean, these people SERIOUSLY have the adudacity to present this waste of time and pain as "a study", while failing every single task on the way that would be necessary to make an actual study. Completely ZERO skill in positive training displayed in full HD. Thank you for this review.
Thank you! I'm genuinely SHOCKED actual researchers would put their names to this. Submitting to MDPI rather than other journals has to show that they knew it wouldn't pass an actual peer review.... so why do it? It baffles me!
I am in the same boat as you as far as training methodology but this isn't just an issue with this study. Most studies comparing training methods are heavily biased or use information from owner surveys. Poor scientific studies are in issue in most of the studies surrounding dog training.
Oh fully agree. I was commenting with someone earlier about how ALL studies have limitations and issues. The discussion section is my favourite to read 😂 My major complaints with this study are 1) the claim of no conflict of interest..: for the reasons I laid out in this video plus some new ones that have come to light in my comments. I just don’t see how that’s acceptable. and 2) how strongly they interpreted their results on page 1 given the weak data set and inappropriate methods. Felt misleading as heck. By all means have a weak study with lots of limitations… but be honest about it.
Yes, I agree. Societal demands are not the driving force for good scientific questions, strategies and research. But....they are the driving force for funding (unless you, as a scientist, accept extremely stringent quality and innovation criteria, which after all I find perfectly OK, and unless society accepts that the results and data may nurture understanding and questioning...but certainly not give ready-to-use protocols nor simple answers). I would add that the way information (generally without reading original data, sometimes of difficult access, or following multiple interpretations/over-interpretations/over-simplifications) is spread is an additional problem....
this paper is certainly poor quality. the suggestion that owners simply need a shock collar to prevent their dogs from dying. except the dog still needs the collar on, you'll need to have the remote on you, impeccable timing, and you'll still have to be looking at your dog. it all falls apart without the collar, so it is wild to put all of our eggs in that basket. just train a rocket recall cue i'm begging y'all
All of this 👏 AND even with the so-called expert trainer being allowed to use the shock collar at 10/10 level repeatedly, 25% of the dogs STILL had to be dropped out of the study group since it wasn’t inhibiting their behaviour fast enough. So even at full blast, it didn’t work for all dogs (despite the authors seemingly claiming otherwise)
@@kittuboo, What is rocket recall? My dogs have terrible recall, and are never allowed off leash if we’re not at home. Both have high prey drive, and the younger one won’t take treats outside of our house (too much excitement about the environment).
@@SuziQ. hey there! have you checked out Happy Hounds' videos on recall tips? that would be a great place to get a visual of the foundations! it is a bit confusing but there are two versions of Rocket Recall (the book) and i am not sure the difference as i've only read Simone Mueller's - however, Lisa Lyle Waggoner is also a reputable trainer and wrote the book that came first! both of these people may have online learning options too if that is easier. i also have a pup who cannot help but overreact to the environment the moment he's outside - and when they do this, they aren't in the "think and learn zone". not taking food is a big sign that tells us they're out of the think and learn zone! for my dog, the barrier to success is chronic pain - keep in mind you'll have to investigate the reason behind pup's overarousal - definitely do that before attempting any training! i hope it goes well - i bet Happy Hounds can follow up with any troubleshooting tips tho the books should cover a lot of it!
TL;DR - we need more studies from more varied trainers because bias is a sneaky sneaky thing I'm not a professional trainer, though I was raised by one in a house full of Rottweilers trained for competitive IGP. We lean towards balanced methods and generally agree with Balabanov and his methods. That being said, I can recognize that this study has some fairly large holes. I feel like further research on the topic, done in more controlled environments with larger and more varied groups, would really be beneficial to the industry as a whole. I feel that some previous studies done on the effects of aversives are also flawed, to varying degrees. There isn't one ultimate study that everyone can agree on (everyone includes balanced and traditional trainers). I think this study was balanced trainers trying to take a step towards a more nuanced view on dog training within the scientific community. It was a clumsy step, but I feel it was going in the right direction. Unfortunately, bias seems to creep into every study on the topic.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining No, I finished both, I just disagree with you :) Edit: I just reread my comment and honestly I'm not entirely sure what you have a problem with?
@andreaw2053 You started your comment with TL:DR… does that acronym not mean “too long didn’t read”? My question was asking which you were referring to by that. Anyhow, I have zero concerns with you disagreeing. And I agree with you that bias is always going to be present. I myself am obviously biased in how I believe dogs should be treated. Therefore if included in a study I should have no hand in the design or sample set. I would expect research to be setup in a way that at least TRIES to overcome bias in its methodology, and that explicitly states any bias that remains. As myself and many other commenters have mentioned, it’s wildly inappropriate to claim no conflict of interest was claimed on this study. I’m not surprised to see many even on the “pro-punishment side” push back against this study. It comes across as a sneaky way of trying to make punishment appear better than it is, and reflects poorly even if those are someone’s training beliefs.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining the TL;DR was for people uninterested in my three-paragraph comment - I just got to the point. And yea, I think for the most part we agree that the study wasn't great. Edit, again: took out some stupid stuff I said - I apologize for my sloppy comprehension skills. I misread some of your response. In my defense, it is nearly 1 am on my side of the world and I'm coming off a night of 4 hour sleep. Apparently being tired also makes me excessively long winded.
LOL. I have a newborn, so I can certainly empathize with your sleep deprivation. I’ve had to edit a few replies myself once I re-read my comment after some coffee 😂
I was sent this on Facebook: www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animal-emotions/202409/is-balanced-training-fair-to-dogs-or-is-it-a-cop-out?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0NwcUfM7A9Obr1vqDcae2uYDN2he7Viy4bAYFkT7DSy3_L3sxpK6UCsII_aem_oBgfeuWOou99lZbfRVSvfQ
I confess I didn't finish reading the study, I started it, read the methods in disbelief and concluded the trainers involved are not very good at training, have an embarrassing lack of knowledge about how to use positive reinforcement and overall just not worth my time to read or entertain any of their posts when I could be spending my time learning how to use positive reinforcement effectively.
I was surprised to see anyone would fund this, but Adrienne’s comment below gives clarity. I’ll copy and paste: “Thank you for your review of this 'study'. The fact that this travestly was paid for by the Wexner Fund, the head of which is an IGP competitor, as is Ivan Balabanov (the trainer on the study who trained the second trainer on the study) who on his podcast with Clive Wynne, one of the authors of the study, said that he would do what he could to find the approximate $100k required to fund such a 'study' means that the claim of there being no conflict of interest may require further investigation.” 🤯😬
Honestly the more I hear the worse it gets 🤦♀️ Apparently at least 2 of the dogs in the study were also being trained by one of the trainers in the study prior to being included 🤦♀️
@@happyhoundsdogtraining Oh man. I feel like that’s the equivalent of a subsidiary of the Coca-Cola company funding a study saying coke aids in digestion.
Just to pull you up on randomisation: In no way would randomisation cause an even split. Perhaps over a larger sample size, but defo not here. Otherwise excellent :D
Thanks! I think my point with the even splitting was if you’re putting 5 dogs in one group and 8 in another (especially when differences in those tiny pairings/sample sizes may lead to welfare implications if the results are taken at face value), then tell us explicitly how those groups were assigned.
Finally! Someone gets it! I LOVE this super blueheartfelt reply!! Couldn't agree more. Tell me which positive training studies you've read completely through and we'll bully happy hounds together about it!
Don't leave me hanging @blueheart29 - we're going to look kind of dumb sitting here not even able to produce the thing we're supposed to be bullying her about... Actually, screw it, we don't need any evidence, let's just list off all of the medals blahblahnov has won and she'll DEFINITELY take us seriously and take the video down!
I’ve had similar discussions in comment threads below, so I’m going to encourage everyone to read through to see if I’ve already answered their questions prior to posting them again. Due to time constraints (newborn) I’m going to need to start ignoring often repeated ones. I also have zero issues admitting my own bias (unlike the study did) on how dogs should be trained, but that actually doesn’t impact how skeptically I read any paper. To answer this question again: all studies have limitations for sure. Thats why researchers are asked to poke holes in their own research and discuss those weaknesses or possible issues in the paper, and factor those into the conclusions they can actually draw from their data. The discussion section of this paper was decent… but how that THEN became what they wrote on page 1 about results baffles me. Over-exaggerating or intentionally misleading the takeaways based on the actual data set is a problem, as is the massive issue with not declaring conflict of interest in a heavily biased study.
The stress and pain of e-collar training is probably less than the stress and pain of getting run over by a car while chasing another animal during the much lengthier and less-reliable period of training by treats only.
Oh, this common argument. 1) No properly done studies have shown that rewards-based training is less effective and 2) Why let a dog off leash near traffic? 3) A leash is quite good at preventing a dog from getting run over by said vehicles during treat training. People are unfortunately going to choose aversive methods because that better suits that human, but it's not better for the dog.
It’s such a common statement because it preys on people’s fear. Of course no one wants their dog to die! However, I also don’t want to be the source of their pain or suffering while they’re alive (which is one thing this study proves: shock collar hurt) 🤦♀️ When excellent results can be achieved with kind methods, there’s no justification for hurting dogs.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining Leaving aside the pain argument for a minute… do you disagree that dogs train faster and a more reliable recall with e-collar than with treats? Or than using both e-collar plus treats?
lol ... I noticed also @ 7:18 that they describe that turning off the lure would have constituted negative punishment, and that it's been demonstrated that blocking access to sheep for sheep chasing dogs is aversive enough to decrease their approaches ... maybe this has changed but I have always seen negative punishment as another side of 'force free' or 'reward-based' training, as it's meant to administer a consequence without fear or pain (like as one way of teaching 'leave it' or 'wait' )
I'm glad you noticed that because it was one of the things on my list when reading the study, but I had to drop about a dozen issues because my video was getting too long hahaha. Force free definitely includes negative punishment! (For those reading that may not be familiar with the terms, positive reinforcement is the addition of something desirable to increase a behaviour such as a treat for walking nicely on leash, and negative punishment is withholding something desirable to decrease a behaviour such as not giving your dog attention while they're demand barking. I know the term "punishment" has a certain connotation, so I always like pointing out in training terms it only means decrease the frequency of a behaviour.)
What I learned from this is that those trainers that criticize positive reinforcement with statements like "behavior isn’t changed by offering a treat buffet" literally think that's what positive reinforcement trainers do. How sad they don't care to learn more. Are you trolling with that vacuum comparison? When SG was on IB's channel, IB made almost the exact same comment in the commenta section.
I am trolling, but not because of what you stated. I used the same vacuum analogy and clips in an older video where I discussed “why force free dog training doesn’t work”. That video was brought to Ivan’s attention (someone commented about it on one of his videos and tagged me) and I know Ivan saw it because he referred to how I spoke as AI sounding 😂 I had no idea he was still continuing to use my analogy. How flattering 😉
This is the old one with the vacuum analogy & clips: Why DOESN'T Force Free Dog Training Work? (NOT What You'd Expect..) th-cam.com/video/WYZXjGhmAww/w-d-xo.html
If you've enjoyed this video please like, comment & share 🙂 It really helps!
Study linked here: www.mdpi.com/2951172
►👀 WATCH NEXT:
* Understanding Dog Training Methods (Operant Conditioning): th-cam.com/video/A6YYViqEFbw/w-d-xo.html
* Are Force Free Dog Trainers Close-Minded? (My opinion): th-cam.com/video/SaYDCuBD5Fc/w-d-xo.html
* Why Do I Make *FREE* Force Free Dog Training Tutorials?: th-cam.com/video/Y3n0qdeP_gU/w-d-xo.html
* STOP Animal Chasing: Complete Dog Prey Drive Tutorial: th-cam.com/video/A7D9tE40xoE/w-d-xo.html
This is great. I was also thinking of reviewing this paper (and I like going deep into controversial topics) so thank you for saving me the time. Good job.
Glad you liked it! It took a lot of time haha, so glad to save you that 😊
@DrOrion please please go ahead and do a review. The more credible people who take this thing apart the better.. :)
Haha love the conclusion. Excellent breakdown. Easy to see the holes in the study!
Thank you! Glad you liked it 😊
Thank you for the review and comprehensive and easy to understand breakdown. I personally want to also thank you and admire you for having the courage to put yourself at risk for some really negative input from the shock community. Even though he is going to deny it Ivan has conclusvily debunked the myth that shock collars don't hurt so that's kind of an upside to this nonsense.
I suspect for the crowd that used shock collars prior to this study, my review will do nothing. But for people that are sitting on the fence about methods and might see the headline and supposed “results”, I wanted to share why I think this study is a sham.
Great video!!! Its extremely detailed and you broke it down so it was easy to understand!
Thank you!!
Thank you for doing this video while caring for your newborn! This study is like everytime I watch an aversive trainer talking about reinforcement based training (bashing it), I can see that they have absolutely no understanding of how behavior works.
You did a wonderful job at explaining it clearly and simply for people that aren't professional 👏
You're welcome! I did have a clip where I'd said "This study was seemingly only testing whether shock collar trainers know how to use treats to change a behaviour, and the conclusion was no" but I thought it was a little too snarky and cut it out 😂
Ivan Balabanov: Science has no place in dog training
Also Ivan: Here's my scientific study about shock collars in dog training... 🤔
You forgot the air quotes when you said "study" lol
@@ihelpdogs absolutely 👍
Science had no place in this "study".
Thank you for this great video. It is very detailed but you managed to keep it very simple. I also like how professionnal you remain despite the bad faith of the authors. Anyway, thanks a lot !
Thank you!
You make a lot of really good points. Unfortunately i don't think a lot of people will listen.
Unfortunately you're likely right, but I wanted to try anyways ♥
@@parley1994 it's true. i hope that, now, the people who were lied to by punitive trainers (who charge thousands!!!) saying that the collars don't cause pain can now see it - the "top" people using aversives have put it in writing, so it can't be denied thru rose colored glasses anymore.
even if just those people realize they've been scammed by these trainers because they only accepted under the guise that it couldn't *not* be ethical... these videos breaking it down are worth it!
as for those who are loud and proud about their enjoyment of utilizing aversives and punishment - we were never gonna mesh with that mindset anyway.
Very well spoken and you remained very polite despite what you were discussing!
Thank you so much 🙏
When I started my dog training school in 1992 , in South Africa - I called it Happy Hounds, so I LOVE your school name! Cool! (I changed it several times since then ! ) Anyway - thanks for speaking out about this "Stuffy" and dont let the agro ones get you down! I have in my life, at my home, a very messed up dog, that is used as the standard for justification of using shock, prong and blah blah - and he has learned to listen absolutely and totally to me WITHOUT any of those, and with just happy, kind and positive training - no pain, no threats (he will seriously not enjoy that and that is what started his issue in the first place) and he walks in a harness (oh the horror - and of course, if i wanted to, I could hurt him with that - sure - but I wont because I simply do NOT want to hurt anything - ever). No one is actually debating whether using a shock collar stops an action (ie "works) but the LONG TERM EFFECTS are NOT spoken of - from actual aggressive responses to simple shut down). Try get a shut down dog to engage in self thinking for example. It is very sad that we have come to a place where we are actually debating this to start with. 30 plus years of FF training and still the same arguments. GO GIRL! You rock! Love the DogGuruSA
Massive thank you! This made me happy to read 😊 I fully agree- it's a comparison of apples to oranges. Whether a method makes a dog temporarily act the way WE want them to (especially when that's in the opposite way of how we've bred them to act, but that's a whole other discussion) cannot be the whole "debate". Long term effects and changes to quality of life need to be considered. There's a saying that if we're constantly pulling people out of the river we need to move upstream and see why they're falling in.... I feel like that applies so heavily to the dog training method debate.
I heard about this "study". As soon as I learned that Ivan Blah-blah-blahnov was involved, the entire thing lost credibility to me. That guy would slap an E-collar on his mom if it earned him a medal
I'm pretty sure you'll end up with the most liked comment on this video 😂
@@happyhoundsdogtraining I actually hope Ivan is ok. After this study was done, the 11 dogs that he didn't have the opportunity to bless with his holy ecollar shocks were damned to die in traffic, be shot, die of starvation, loneliness, hurricanes, and/or lightning. I don't know how he can live with himself knowing he let them go without shocking them at LEAST once. Or more than 20.
@@tedppI’m sure he’ll do a podcast about this very subject and how his superior scientific knowledge and dog training expertise makes him the bestest dog shocker, oh wait 😂
LOL. You forgot aliens on that list. "More than 20" is a witty addition and shows me you genuinely watched my video hahaha.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining @IvanBalabanov
Pretty sure he could have you on his podcast to discuss your issues with the study
Thank you for taking the time to do this video. It's very well done, easy to follow and sums up the "study" perfectly. I hope it reaches people who are prepared to shock their dogs and makes them think about using kinder methods instead!
Very well done lovey lady ❤
Thank you!
You really did a great job here! Thanks for taking the time!
Thank you! 😊
Excellent video. Thank you for deciding to make it after all! I was familiar with the backwards training but there were so many other errors I did not yet know about.
Thanks! I tried to talk myself out of making it because it felt like a lot to take on with a new kiddo, but eventually decided it was important enough that I wanted to voice my concerns 😊
Wow, thanks for taking the time to review this report. I've not gotten all the way through yet but it's not looking too promising for the shock fans!
Making this ended up being a huge project, but I felt the study needed debunking ❤
Thank you so much for putting this together!!
I felt like I had to 😊 Spent Thursday trying to talk myself out of it hahaha, but clearly I had things to say 😂
Thanks for your sacrifice. We need more people like you who can read scientific papers to speak up. I myself absolutely hate reading papers so I appreciate this summary very much!
Unfortunately I made the mistake of wading into the $hit$torm of the comments section in Mr Ecollar's page, and I saw the shifting of the goal posts...they're claiming that "yelping" is not due to pain (when Mr Ecollar himself wrote in the study that it's a "pain induced yelp") and that "all FF research is flawed" (yes there is no perfect study, but I'm sure whatever FF/R+ research that has been done is miles better than this one)
(after that I blocked his page to force myself to stop haha)
Ooof, y’all are wildly closed minded. Ivan is the GOAT. “Discomfort over death” is not unkind you psychopaths. Laying on a cold table awaiting death bc you chase squirrels is ludicrous.
Lol “discomfort over death” is a false dichotomy that people use when they’re grasping at straws trying to justify continuing to use abusive training. As Ivan’s OWN study states: there’s no data to support any claims that rewards based training in any way leads to a dogs death. Thanks for the engagement though!
All studies have limitations for sure! That’s why each paper is required to discuss them. This study had more holes than Swiss cheese though 😂 and the “results” the authors claim in the abstract are a WILD stretch from their actual data set… hard not to see it as anything but incredibly biased.
@@brentnathan8069 it's pretty unkind when there are positive methods to address the underlying emotion driving chasing behavior as well as training a different automatic response to the stimulus.
it's a shame when someone doesn't want to troubleshoot what they might be doing wrong, and to make up for their skill gap, they reach for an aversive. dog training is a beautiful, inspiring place when you get off of the balanced algorithm.
@@brentnathan8069 Ah, here's one of them, peddling the oft-repeated argument that aversive training is required for difficult dogs. I'm not going to bother trying to argue with you because you'll just shift the goal posts, yet again.
Thanks for this "review" (maybe evisceration?) of this... "Scientific paper". I'm admittedly one of the people who read the first page, rolled my eyes in the general direction of the IF YOU DON'T USE AN ECOLLAR YOUR DOG IS GOING TO DIE crowd, and didn't bother going through the rest of it. Your video made me actually read the entire thing. One more interesting thing I noticed in terms of the welfare claims part was under the ethical considerations section at the end of the paper. They really do make pretty grandiose claims about dogs being given up to shelters, shot by livestock owners, and being euthanized; but also quietly say directly afterwards that they have no data on how often this actually happens. You can't claim welfare is improved if you can't show anything at ALL proving that this is actually happening on any kind of noteworthy scale.
There were about 10 other red flags I wanted to mention (like the one you just said) but I figured the video was long enough 😂
Thank you for doing this video! Such important information to get out there.
Thanks, I hope it does some good 😊
This study was probably published through MDPI because other scholarly journals rejected it. Terrific break down - I’ll be sure to share your video to get the message out!
Hahaha looking at the submission versus publication dates should be a massive tip off about the quality of the paper 😂
Thank you so much for this review.
I am speechless about the "study".
And I do not understand how anyone can believe in the conclusion.
Unfortunately so few people will read the whole thing, and page 1 makes shock collars sound way better 😕
Excellent review of this paper. Laughed out loud at the Vacuum Analogy! :-) Good work!
Thank you! I’ll admit I used those vacuum clips from a video I made about 2 years ago… they seemed to be a perfect conclusion to this one 😂
Thank you for your review of this 'study'. The fact that this travestly was paid for by the Wexner Fund, the head of which is an IGP competitor, as is Ivan Balabanov (the trainer on the study who trained the second trainer on the study) who on his podcast with Clive Wynne, one of the authors of the study, said that he would do what he could to find the approximate $100k required to fund such a 'study' means that the claim of there being no conflict of interest may require further investigation.
THANK YOU!! You just helped put some final puzzle pieces together for me. After noticing all of the biases (despite the so called “no conflict of interest”) I was really curious why a foundation would fund this. Your comment unfortunately clears up a lot. If it wasn’t MDPI (did you see the submission date versus publication date? Wowza) I can’t imagine any paper being willing to publish this as it’s so wildly inappropriate.
@@happyhoundsdogtrainingYeah. Ivan openly admitted to this
@@ZaryaTheLaika How on earth did all this get claimed as no conflict of interest?
@happyhoundsdogtraining No idea. Maybe if someone is patient enough time dig through his posts / podcasts, someone like Dr. Orion can use it as evidence
What is the Wexner Fund? I can't find anything relevant on the googles.
18:17 - yeah, you can tell Ivan didn't ask positive gundog trainers to participate in the studies. That camp has no problem disproving ecollar users in their own spaces. He was too busy beefing with Zak George.
Just thinking how gundog trainers use prey drive as a reward and teach impulse control at the highest levels without relying on treats
Yes!!! I was hoping you’d watch this video and weigh in 😊
@@happyhoundsdogtraining I remember Ivan complaining no one would accept his offer to participate in this study.
And it's like, bro, not every positive reinforcement trainers talk to each others. You're too obsessed with Zak George!
After years of academic study - I commend your analysis of the study
Thank you!! 🙏
Thank you for this great review! Great job!
Thank you!
all this proved is that I.B. doesn't understand how rewards training works or willfully designed the whole training plan to set up rewards to fail. I think it's incredibly embarrassing for C.W. to have attached himself to this garbage study. if it is indeed a part of a student PhD thing.....then this student needs better help in crafting their studies. YIKES all around.
Agreed. It was basically testing whether shock collar trainers know how to inhibit chasing behaviours using rewards, and apparently the answer is no. How the trainers being unable (or unwilling) to being stretched to “rewards don’t work” is beyond me. And then to claim 100% success in the abstract while failing to mention that 25% of the group didn’t respond to the intervention and was excluded? Yikes. I’m shocked anyone with a degree put their name on this, and even more so that no conflicts of interest were admitted.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining absolutely
@happyhoundsdogtraining *rears head from the smoldering battleground of the Claire Wade vs Kateriina Mäki debate* I got war stories to tell you. I have seen things no one should have to see
Before saying what IB (aka Ivan Balabanov) does or does not understand, read his titles that I copypasted here.
World Champion - International Dog Federation (FCI) All Breeds IPO3.
World Champion - Belgian Shepherd World Federation (FMBB) IPO3.
7 x National Champion American Working Dog Federation (AWDF) IPO3.
7 x National Champion American Working Malinois Association (AWMA) IPO3.
National Champion United Schutzhund Clubs of America German Shepherds IPO3.
2021 DVG America National Champion IPO 3
2000 FMBB Homburg,Germany Belgian Shepherd World Vice Champion
2000 DVG America All Breeds Nationals IPO 3 Champion
1999 DVG America All Breeds Nationals IPO 3 Champion
1998 DVG America All Breeds Nationals IPO 3 Champion
@bartsimpson208 none of those titles prove he knows how to properly utilize R+ *without any intentional application of aversives*. he used aversives to accomplish all of them
Thank you for this thorough review!
😊
Commenting to help the algorithm! Thank you for this!
Thank you! 😊
Thank you for taking this on. Is this journal, Animals, even a peer-reviewed journal? Never heard of it before. I had been toying with the idea of moving to AZ to get a doctorate in animal behavior at the U of AZ - no more. Have totally lost respect for Clive Wynne.
It’s published in MDPI, which has made predatory lists before for being a “pay to play” journal. I suspect the authors choosing that one speaks volumes about knowing whether other journals would accept it. Honestly I’m surprised to see researchers put their name on something with so much bias and issues.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining I posted my comment before I reached the end of the video and saw where it was published. Shameful.
It is peer-reviewed, but lower barrier to entry. Usually a journal whuch gets submitted to if the other prestigious institutes reject the paper. There's an editor who stated there's nothing wrong with publishing for MDPI, just lower on the list of preferences.
This was Excellent ⭐️ thank you 🐾
Thanks!
I do not think you are harsh. Not at all. I am harsh. :'D
I mean, these people SERIOUSLY have the adudacity to present this waste of time and pain as "a study", while failing every single task on the way that would be necessary to make an actual study. Completely ZERO skill in positive training displayed in full HD.
Thank you for this review.
Thank you! I'm genuinely SHOCKED actual researchers would put their names to this. Submitting to MDPI rather than other journals has to show that they knew it wouldn't pass an actual peer review.... so why do it? It baffles me!
I am in the same boat as you as far as training methodology but this isn't just an issue with this study. Most studies comparing training methods are heavily biased or use information from owner surveys. Poor scientific studies are in issue in most of the studies surrounding dog training.
Oh fully agree. I was commenting with someone earlier about how ALL studies have limitations and issues. The discussion section is my favourite to read 😂 My major complaints with this study are 1) the claim of no conflict of interest..: for the reasons I laid out in this video plus some new ones that have come to light in my comments. I just don’t see how that’s acceptable. and 2) how strongly they interpreted their results on page 1 given the weak data set and inappropriate methods. Felt misleading as heck. By all means have a weak study with lots of limitations… but be honest about it.
Yes, I agree. Societal demands are not the driving force for good scientific questions, strategies and research. But....they are the driving force for funding (unless you, as a scientist, accept extremely stringent quality and innovation criteria, which after all I find perfectly OK, and unless society accepts that the results and data may nurture understanding and questioning...but certainly not give ready-to-use protocols nor simple answers). I would add that the way information (generally without reading original data, sometimes of difficult access, or following multiple interpretations/over-interpretations/over-simplifications) is spread is an additional problem....
Thank for share ❤❤❤
You’re welcome ☺️
this paper is certainly poor quality. the suggestion that owners simply need a shock collar to prevent their dogs from dying. except the dog still needs the collar on, you'll need to have the remote on you, impeccable timing, and you'll still have to be looking at your dog.
it all falls apart without the collar, so it is wild to put all of our eggs in that basket. just train a rocket recall cue i'm begging y'all
All of this 👏 AND even with the so-called expert trainer being allowed to use the shock collar at 10/10 level repeatedly, 25% of the dogs STILL had to be dropped out of the study group since it wasn’t inhibiting their behaviour fast enough. So even at full blast, it didn’t work for all dogs (despite the authors seemingly claiming otherwise)
@@happyhoundsdogtraining ugh, absolutely. there's too many holes in this study to keep up with! 😂
It’s totally Swiss cheese 😂
@@kittuboo,
What is rocket recall?
My dogs have terrible recall, and are never allowed off leash if we’re not at home.
Both have high prey drive, and the younger one won’t take treats outside of our house (too much excitement about the environment).
@@SuziQ. hey there! have you checked out Happy Hounds' videos on recall tips? that would be a great place to get a visual of the foundations! it is a bit confusing but there are two versions of Rocket Recall (the book) and i am not sure the difference as i've only read Simone Mueller's - however, Lisa Lyle Waggoner is also a reputable trainer and wrote the book that came first! both of these people may have online learning options too if that is easier.
i also have a pup who cannot help but overreact to the environment the moment he's outside - and when they do this, they aren't in the "think and learn zone". not taking food is a big sign that tells us they're out of the think and learn zone! for my dog, the barrier to success is chronic pain - keep in mind you'll have to investigate the reason behind pup's overarousal - definitely do that before attempting any training! i hope it goes well - i bet Happy Hounds can follow up with any troubleshooting tips tho the books should cover a lot of it!
Brava!
Thank you!
❤
😊
TL;DR - we need more studies from more varied trainers because bias is a sneaky sneaky thing
I'm not a professional trainer, though I was raised by one in a house full of Rottweilers trained for competitive IGP. We lean towards balanced methods and generally agree with Balabanov and his methods. That being said, I can recognize that this study has some fairly large holes. I feel like further research on the topic, done in more controlled environments with larger and more varied groups, would really be beneficial to the industry as a whole.
I feel that some previous studies done on the effects of aversives are also flawed, to varying degrees. There isn't one ultimate study that everyone can agree on (everyone includes balanced and traditional trainers). I think this study was balanced trainers trying to take a step towards a more nuanced view on dog training within the scientific community. It was a clumsy step, but I feel it was going in the right direction.
Unfortunately, bias seems to creep into every study on the topic.
To clarify your comment: was it the video you didn’t finish or the study you didn’t fully read?
@@happyhoundsdogtraining No, I finished both, I just disagree with you :)
Edit: I just reread my comment and honestly I'm not entirely sure what you have a problem with?
@andreaw2053 You started your comment with TL:DR… does that acronym not mean “too long didn’t read”? My question was asking which you were referring to by that.
Anyhow, I have zero concerns with you disagreeing. And I agree with you that bias is always going to be present. I myself am obviously biased in how I believe dogs should be treated. Therefore if included in a study I should have no hand in the design or sample set.
I would expect research to be setup in a way that at least TRIES to overcome bias in its methodology, and that explicitly states any bias that remains. As myself and many other commenters have mentioned, it’s wildly inappropriate to claim no conflict of interest was claimed on this study.
I’m not surprised to see many even on the “pro-punishment side” push back against this study. It comes across as a sneaky way of trying to make punishment appear better than it is, and reflects poorly even if those are someone’s training beliefs.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining the TL;DR was for people uninterested in my three-paragraph comment - I just got to the point.
And yea, I think for the most part we agree that the study wasn't great.
Edit, again: took out some stupid stuff I said - I apologize for my sloppy comprehension skills. I misread some of your response. In my defense, it is nearly 1 am on my side of the world and I'm coming off a night of 4 hour sleep. Apparently being tired also makes me excessively long winded.
LOL. I have a newborn, so I can certainly empathize with your sleep deprivation. I’ve had to edit a few replies myself once I re-read my comment after some coffee 😂
Thank you! You were very kind, and I couldn’t agree more. That ‘study’ is such a joke.
Thank you! More holes than Swiss cheese 🧀
Oh, Clive Wynn. The person who regularly butt head with Marc Bekoff
I was sent this on Facebook: www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animal-emotions/202409/is-balanced-training-fair-to-dogs-or-is-it-a-cop-out?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0NwcUfM7A9Obr1vqDcae2uYDN2he7Viy4bAYFkT7DSy3_L3sxpK6UCsII_aem_oBgfeuWOou99lZbfRVSvfQ
Makes many of the same points I did. Glad to see I’m not the only one that saw holes.
@@happyhoundsdogtraining *knocks on wood* speak of the Devil
@happyhoundsdogtraining just to be clear, I have nothing against Wynn. Just funny I am in dog-space long enough to know the lores
I confess I didn't finish reading the study, I started it, read the methods in disbelief and concluded the trainers involved are not very good at training, have an embarrassing lack of knowledge about how to use positive reinforcement and overall just not worth my time to read or entertain any of their posts when I could be spending my time learning how to use positive reinforcement effectively.
Ah bababado it could only be that Jekyll and Hyde enthusiast 😂 zero clue about the scientific method or dog training. Great job in debunking this
Hahaha thank you
Omg...triggered by that cliff edge!😮
Sorry I’m not sure what you mean exactly 😂
Was this study funded by anyone?
I was surprised to see anyone would fund this, but Adrienne’s comment below gives clarity. I’ll copy and paste: “Thank you for your review of this 'study'. The fact that this travestly was paid for by the Wexner Fund, the head of which is an IGP competitor, as is Ivan Balabanov (the trainer on the study who trained the second trainer on the study) who on his podcast with Clive Wynne, one of the authors of the study, said that he would do what he could to find the approximate $100k required to fund such a
'study' means that the claim of there being no conflict of interest may require further investigation.”
🤯😬
@@happyhoundsdogtraining thanks for the info: I had wondered about this funding source...
Honestly the more I hear the worse it gets 🤦♀️ Apparently at least 2 of the dogs in the study were also being trained by one of the trainers in the study prior to being included 🤦♀️
@@happyhoundsdogtraining Nooooo!! Have you hear of any other of Clive Wynne’s scientific peers critiquing this study?
@@happyhoundsdogtraining Oh man. I feel like that’s the equivalent of a subsidiary of the Coca-Cola company funding a study saying coke aids in digestion.
Just to pull you up on randomisation: In no way would randomisation cause an even split. Perhaps over a larger sample size, but defo not here.
Otherwise excellent :D
Thanks! I think my point with the even splitting was if you’re putting 5 dogs in one group and 8 in another (especially when differences in those tiny pairings/sample sizes may lead to welfare implications if the results are taken at face value), then tell us explicitly how those groups were assigned.
if only you'd be using the same skepticism on purely positive training "studies"
Finally! Someone gets it! I LOVE this super blueheartfelt reply!! Couldn't agree more. Tell me which positive training studies you've read completely through and we'll bully happy hounds together about it!
Don't leave me hanging @blueheart29 - we're going to look kind of dumb sitting here not even able to produce the thing we're supposed to be bullying her about... Actually, screw it, we don't need any evidence, let's just list off all of the medals blahblahnov has won and she'll DEFINITELY take us seriously and take the video down!
I’ve had similar discussions in comment threads below, so I’m going to encourage everyone to read through to see if I’ve already answered their questions prior to posting them again. Due to time constraints (newborn) I’m going to need to start ignoring often repeated ones. I also have zero issues admitting my own bias (unlike the study did) on how dogs should be trained, but that actually doesn’t impact how skeptically I read any paper. To answer this question again: all studies have limitations for sure. Thats why researchers are asked to poke holes in their own research and discuss those weaknesses or possible issues in the paper, and factor those into the conclusions they can actually draw from their data. The discussion section of this paper was decent… but how that THEN became what they wrote on page 1 about results baffles me. Over-exaggerating or intentionally misleading the takeaways based on the actual data set is a problem, as is the massive issue with not declaring conflict of interest in a heavily biased study.
I’m dying 😂 Thank you for that morning laugh
PuRLy PoSitVe, yep the use of positive punishment and its effects, which has been well documented via bababbado in his recent “scientific study”
The stress and pain of e-collar training is probably less than the stress and pain of getting run over by a car while chasing another animal during the much lengthier and less-reliable period of training by treats only.
Oh, this common argument. 1) No properly done studies have shown that rewards-based training is less effective and 2) Why let a dog off leash near traffic? 3) A leash is quite good at preventing a dog from getting run over by said vehicles during treat training. People are unfortunately going to choose aversive methods because that better suits that human, but it's not better for the dog.
Aversives or death is such a Jekyll and Hyde enthusiasts mantra. Because one trick shock and awe ponies can’t simply explain any other trick…
It’s such a common statement because it preys on people’s fear. Of course no one wants their dog to die! However, I also don’t want to be the source of their pain or suffering while they’re alive (which is one thing this study proves: shock collar hurt) 🤦♀️ When excellent results can be achieved with kind methods, there’s no justification for hurting dogs.
@@happyhoundsdogtrainingthe degree of force used in animal training is inversely proportional to the trainers level of competence 😊
@@happyhoundsdogtraining Leaving aside the pain argument for a minute… do you disagree that dogs train faster and a more reliable recall with e-collar than with treats? Or than using both e-collar plus treats?
lol ... I noticed also @ 7:18 that they describe that turning off the lure would have constituted negative punishment, and that it's been demonstrated that blocking access to sheep for sheep chasing dogs is aversive enough to decrease their approaches ...
maybe this has changed but I have always seen negative punishment as another side of 'force free' or 'reward-based' training, as it's meant to administer a consequence without fear or pain (like as one way of teaching 'leave it' or 'wait' )
I'm glad you noticed that because it was one of the things on my list when reading the study, but I had to drop about a dozen issues because my video was getting too long hahaha. Force free definitely includes negative punishment! (For those reading that may not be familiar with the terms, positive reinforcement is the addition of something desirable to increase a behaviour such as a treat for walking nicely on leash, and negative punishment is withholding something desirable to decrease a behaviour such as not giving your dog attention while they're demand barking. I know the term "punishment" has a certain connotation, so I always like pointing out in training terms it only means decrease the frequency of a behaviour.)
What I learned from this is that those trainers that criticize positive reinforcement with statements like "behavior isn’t changed by offering a treat buffet" literally think that's what positive reinforcement trainers do. How sad they don't care to learn more.
Are you trolling with that vacuum comparison? When SG was on IB's channel, IB made almost the exact same comment in the commenta section.
I am trolling, but not because of what you stated. I used the same vacuum analogy and clips in an older video where I discussed “why force free dog training doesn’t work”. That video was brought to Ivan’s attention (someone commented about it on one of his videos and tagged me) and I know Ivan saw it because he referred to how I spoke as AI sounding 😂 I had no idea he was still continuing to use my analogy. How flattering 😉
This is the old one with the vacuum analogy & clips: Why DOESN'T Force Free Dog Training Work? (NOT What You'd Expect..)
th-cam.com/video/WYZXjGhmAww/w-d-xo.html
@@happyhoundsdogtraining haha. I had no idea it went so deep. 🤣
@@haventli Apparently either did I 😂😂😂 I’ve never listened to Ivan’s podcast so your comment was news to me!
@@happyhoundsdogtraining I only listened the once, when Susan was on.