Predictability Changes Everything

Randomness is brutal on a nervous system, and dogs are no exception. We come back from a much-needed “touch grass” break and dig into one of the most cited papers in the e-collar debate: the Schalke study on predictability and stress. People love to wave it around as proof that electronic collars are inherently harmful, but when we slow down and read what the researchers actually measured, the real takeaway is sharper and more practical: unpredictability is what drives the biggest cortisol spikes.

We walk through how the study is set up with three beagle groups, what “predictable and controllable” really means, and why the random-stimulation group shows the most intense and lasting stress response. We also unpack the details that get skipped online, including that every trial is run at the highest intensity setting as a worst-case stress test, and how saliva cortisol timing and blinded measurement strengthen the findings. Heart rate gets discussed too, with a clear explanation of why movement can muddy that signal.

From there, I connect the science to real training: learned helplessness, poor timing, and why a dog needs a clear way to shut stimulation off. I share what balanced e-collar conditioning looks like when it’s done responsibly: foundation behaviors first, low working levels, clarity, and then accountability only after the dog understands the rules. If you want a research-based conversation that actually respects method, nuance, and animal welfare, hit play, then subscribe, share with a trainer friend, and leave a review so more owners can find it.

SOURCES

1. Schalke et al., "Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations"

   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228355489_Clinical_signs_caused_by_the_use_of_electric_training_collars_on_dogs_in_everyday_life_situations

2. PLOS ONE (2020), Vieira de Castro et al., "Does training method matter?"

   https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0225023

3. Cooper et al. (2014), "The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars"

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4153538/

4. Frontiers in Veterinary Science (2026), "Professional dog trainers' perspectives on training methods"

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12975608/

5. Johnson and Wynne (2024), "Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs"

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11428818/

6. "Do aversive-based training methods actually compromise dog welfare? A literature review"

   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159117302095

Visit us on the website here to see what we've got going on and how you can join our pack of good dogs and owners.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Back From A Break

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Hello, hello, and welcome back to the Everyday Trainer Podcast. My name is Meg, and I am a dog trainer. We are picking back up where I left off, and we're breaking down another common study. This week we're talking about the predictability and e-collar training. You know the drill? Grab yourself a tasty drink and meet us back here. Hi guys, welcome back. I took a little bit of a breather from the podcast and just kind of the internet in general. Um, I had to go touch some grass. I went and lived in the forest for a couple weeks. It was amazing. 10 out of 10, definitely recommend. And it also made me realize that it really is these phones that are kind of making us miserable. So here's your sign to maybe take a little break for um the internet and go frolic in the forest with your dogs, maybe. You know, you know. Um, so all that to say, I'm probably a little bit rusty, but we're here, we're doing it. And this week I'm breaking down another study that is commonly used in the industry. So last week we covered the science of motivation. This week we're covering the science of predictability. So if you're new here and you don't know, I am a dog trainer who utilizes tools. I use e-callers, I use prong callers, I'm mostly, I would say, reward-based. I would consider myself a true balanced trainer and that I'm using both rewards and also punishment to teach

The Tool Debate And The Study

SPEAKER_00 2:00

behaviors and also stop unwanted behaviors. And if you spent any time on the internet, you have probably realized that there is a pretty big debate amongst dog trainers and methodologies. And there's like a camp of trainers who will label them as I'm doing air quotes here, force-free. Then there's the balance people, then there's like the compulsion people. Not very many people are gonna like self-identify as that. Um, but there's a camp of trainers who don't believe in using tools, and they're often citing the quote science, saying that the science doesn't actually back up the use of punishment and tools in dog training and that it causes a lot of stress to our dogs. So the study that I'm gonna break down this week is the Shulk study. If you spent any time in the e-color debate, you've probably seen the Shulk study get cited, usually by somebody who is trying to prove that tools are inherently harmful. But here is what it actually found. Shulk and his team took 14 laboratory beagles and split them into three groups, each getting stimulation in a completely different way. One group got stimmed, and this is the e-collar stim,

Three Groups And One Big Variable

SPEAKER_00 3:25

the instant they touched a decoy prey. So the consequence was immediate and directly tied to their own action. A second group got stimulated for blowing off a recall command, they already knew well. The third group got stimmed or shocked completely at random with zero connection to anything the dog was doing. And the results really tell the whole story. The random group, the ones who had no way to predict or control what was happening, showed the biggest spike in cortisol. And the group that got stimulated the instant they touched the prey, the most predictable and controllable setup, barely moved that needle. Their stress response was very minimal. This is the part that gets left out every time someone waves this study around as proof that e-collars are harmful. The study doesn't say that the tools cause stress. It says unpredictability causes stress. And this was actually brought up in that plus one study, the one that I brought up last week, and have made a couple posts on social media about. So it says unpredictability causes this stress. And a dog that clearly understands what triggers a consequence and has a real way to control or avoid it does not show meaningful stress markers. So that's not an argument against e-collars. That's an argument for exactly how good balanced trainers use the e-collar. We build predictability first, make sure the dog has full clarity on the cause and the effect, and the tool becomes communication instead of this unpredictable stress maker. So I did a little bit of deep dive into this study, and I wanted to see, first of all, when was this study conducted? It was actually conducted in 2001, but it wasn't published until 2007. They took about six months to conduct this experiment. And I had I had quite a few questions as a dog trainer. You'll have to excuse the dogs in the background. I'm at the facility and we're doing our night potties right now. So if you hear scratching or barks, that's what's going on in true dog trainer fashion, right? So I wanted to see what kind of e-callers were using in this study, how they were being used, all

Max Level Stims And Study Limits

SPEAKER_00 6:05

that stuff. So what I found is they used a Teletact Micro 3000. It had a transmitter, receiver, caller, and then a dummy caller. So that was like the control group. And the adjustable intensity level was zero to five, five being the strongest. And what really stood out to me when I was doing the research on all of this is every single trial in this study was run at a level five, which is the maximum intensity setting. And this is the highest possible pulse the device could deliver. The pulse was under one millisecond. They're calling it pulse. We call it STEM. And the researchers explicitly state they chose level five to test the dog's reaction under the highest electric pulse and as such, the worst condition possible. So that last point right there is the one that actually matters the most. This wasn't a study on typical responsible e-color use at a working level. It was a worst-case scenario stress test at the max intensity on dogs with no prior handler relationship, no proper conditioning process, and no, and this is for like the random group, no fair way to predict or control the outcome. So even under those deliberately harsh conditions, the group that could clearly associate the stimulus with their own action, which is that group A, showed the lowest stress response. Even at the most extreme intensity setting on dogs with zero conditioning, predictability was still the deciding factor in welfare outcomes.

How Cortisol And Heart Rate Measured

SPEAKER_00 8:06

That's actually a very strong point for e-callers. So I wanted to look at how we're actually measuring the dog's stress. Because if you guys don't know, I do have a background in biology. I spent pretty much all of my college years reading scientific articles. So I do know how to kind of break all of these down. And I also know that whenever we're creating experiments, as the person who's structuring this, you kind of go in with some sort of prediction of how you think the data is going to show. And you create the experiment around that, either kind of proving or disproving your prediction. So I wanted to see how they're actually measuring all the little things in this because it's very easy to just say, you know, oh, these tools cause stress. And then you get into the details of like how they actually measured things. And it's like, um, that's kind of a very generalized statement. But unlike the PLOS study, which I covered last week, I really thought that this was a well-done study, to say the least. So I asked, How are we measuring the cortisol here? So they measured it through saliva, not blood. And this was their collection method. They put a small amount of citric acid in the dog's mouth to stimulate saliva production. Then they'd collect the sample from the dog's cheek using a cotton swab. The samples were immediately spun in a centrifuge at 4,000 RPM and cooled to, you know, 20 degrees Celsius. None of that really matters. And the lab staff doing the measurements were blinded, which means they didn't know which group was which whenever they were measuring everything, which is solid. Good job. So timing. The samples were taken at set intervals, five samples per test, spaced five minutes apart, with the first sample taken 10 minutes after the stem from the e-collar was applied. And they did this timing because cortisol doesn't spike instantly. It takes several minutes to show up in saliva after a stressor. So waiting 10 minutes was really the right call to actually catch the response. And they measured saliva instead of blood because they noted that saliva cortisol correlates highly with plasma cortisol, just at a smaller concentration, roughly 4 to 11% of blood levels, depending on which prior study you reference. Saliva sampling is far less invasive and lets you repeat measurements over a short period without the stress of repeated blood draws, which would have contaminated the stress readings that they were trying to measure. And while they were doing this study, they did also measure heart rate simultaneously. So I was like, okay, well, what were the heart rate results? And the heart rate told a very similar story to cortisol, but the picture was kind of messy and not as clean cut. The overall pattern was on the days that the STE was applied, the random group showed an increase in their peak heart rate. Group A, which is the aversion group, the one that they stemmed on the prey, and group H, which is the here group, showed the opposite. Their peak heart rate actually decreased. And that is kind of interesting and a very meaningful distinction because earlier research found that animals given a real chance to predict or avoid a stressor tend to show a drop in heart rate, while animals with no way to see if it's coming show a spike. That tracks exactly with this study here. So group R had no way to associate their own behavior or a known signal with the STEM. Their bodies just stayed in this heightened, reactive, stressed state. So we'll kind of break down like the statistical significance across like the things that they measured. And this is where it gets a little nuanced across most of the specific data comparisons. There weren't significant differences in the standard heart rate measures. There were significant differences that showed up in a couple of specific data sets, one comparing peak heart rate values, and another comparing the recovery heart rate and peak to recovery ratio, specifically between groups A and groups H and R. So all that is really saying that there's no real significant differences in heart rate between any of the groups. In this study, the researchers flagged the heart rate as kind of like, eh, this is kind of messy and is not really giving us a good thing to go off of because the dogs were also like physically moving, they're chasing prey. So a heart rate spike could reflect the physical exertion just as easily as stress. And that overlap between motion and emotion makes heart rate a much less clean signal than cortisol in this particular study. So that gives you the breakdown of kind of how you know study was done and why we studied cortisol specifically in this paper. I also wanted to understand who was conducting the study. And I was pleasantly surprised with this one. The study was conducted by E. Schulk, J. Stichnoff, and a few other people, published in Applied Animal Behavior Science in 2007. So these people were affiliated with the Department of Animal Welfare and Behavior at the Veterinary College of Hanover, Germany. The research itself was carried out at a laboratory that I cannot pronounce because it is German, which is an animal facility affiliated with the University of Heidelberg, which supplied the 14 beagles from the breeding stock. Also, which is nice to note, the study was approved by the animal welfare officer of the Veterinary School of Hanover and by the German governmental authorities under the German Animal Welfare Act. The funding for the study came from Hans and Helga Maus Foundation. So I was like, well, who the heck is that? Because it's very important to understand who is funding these studies. So this charitable foundation specifically funds research and activities in animal welfare in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg at the veterinary school in Hanover, which is the same institution where

Results Show Predictability Drives Stress

SPEAKER_00 15:45

Schulk and her colleagues were based. Okay, so let's get into the results of the study. Group A, which is the aversion, this is the one that the dogs are stemmed for touching the prey. Shock tied precisely to touching the prey, fully predictable and controllable, the smallest cortisol increase, 22 to 31% above baseline. This was even lower than the increase seen just from being leash restrained during the preliminary tests. Okay. Group H, which is the here group, so dogs that had a here command, shock for ignoring a known recall command. This was a moderate increase up to about 114% in absolute cortisol and up to 100% 160% in relative cortisol. And then the group R, which is our random group, the dogs that were just stemmed randomly. The shock was delivered arbitrarily with no way to predict or control it. This one by far had the highest increase in cortisol, up to 336% in absolute cortisol and 328% in relative cortisol, higher than both groups across nearly every data set. Group R had the highest cortisol levels of the three groups. And four weeks later, after this study was done, they did a post-test. Group R still had the highest cortisol level of the three groups, and group H, uh, their cortisol still hadn't returned to pre-experiment baseline. Group A's levels were the lowest consistent with the main test. So their conclusion was dogs who could clearly associate the shock with their own actions and therefore predict and control it did not show considerable or lasting stress. Dogs who couldn't do that, group H and especially R, showed real sustained stress responses. The paper's own stated takeaway was that poor timing and unpredictable application of high-level shocks carries a real risk of severe, persistent stress, and that use of these devices should require proof of proper training and be restricted to specific appropriate situations. And the last line right there, that is worth keeping at kind of the front of our minds since it's literally the author's own recommendation and it supports my argument of tool usage. We need to know what we're doing with the tool before we just slap it on our dog and

Learned Helplessness And Bad Punishment

SPEAKER_00 18:45

start using it. All right. This brings me into learned helplessness and that connection. Learned helplessness is what happens when an animal learns that their behavior has no reliable effect on their environment. They just stop trying and they completely shut down. This is what the random group and the shulk experienced. It is also what poorly applied punishment produces in dogs. A dog who has learned that nothing they do changes what happens, they stop engaging with whatever we're doing. So when we have bad timing with our punishment, when our dog isn't able to predict why they're being punished, that is what's causing lasting negative effects on dogs and causing these spikes in cortisol. Now I've been a dog trainer for the past eight years of my life. And in the beginning, I wasn't really using tools that much because I didn't really understand the timing of them. I didn't want to mess up dogs. I remember I was learning from a trainer friend of mine, and she had a client dog, and I wanted to shadow her to see how she was using the e-collar. I was very new to it. I was just experimenting on Lucy, my own dog. But I was very, I didn't even want to like touch the remote. I was like, oh my gosh. I shadowed her and she handed me the dog and she was like, here's how we use the e-collar. And I was like, nope, I'm gonna hand it right back over to you. Because I was petrified of messing up a dog. Now that I understand these tools and have spent the last, you know, almost decade of my life training dogs, it's so obvious for me, which I don't think this is really represented in science, but it's so obvious for me after the thousands of dogs that I've trained, how helpful these tools are in dogs' well-being. Because I

Real World Clients And Tool Fear

SPEAKER_00 20:45

don't really get the dogs that come in with bad e-collar training. We do every now and then, they're kind of sprinkled in there, and you know, you'll put an e-collar on the dog and you just see them kind of shut down, and you're like, oh, you have had a bark collar or an invisible fence before, or you have been to another board and train program. I don't really get that many of those dogs, but what I do get a lot of is people who are petrified of using tools because they have been villainized online. They're watching all of these force-free trainers content, telling them that they're gonna ruin their relationship with their dog, that they don't need to use these tools, that they can solve all their problems without these tools. And so a lot of the clients that we're getting are coming in with these super anxious, fearful, reactive or aggressive dogs that are honestly running these people's lives. Or we get the people who are coming in and saying, I don't know what to do if this doesn't get fixed. I have to give the dog up. I see that a lot more than bad e com. And this isn't to say that bad e-color training isn't out there. I'm sure that there are plenty of people that are using their e-colors incorrectly. I'm sure there are plenty of dog trainers that are using their e-colors incorrectly and are just like blasting the dogs and the dogs don't know why they're getting corrected or they're starting off at super high levels. But for a majority of balanced trainers, like we are just not using e-colors in this way. And if you've listened to my previous e-color podcast, I break down the stages of e-color training. First and foremost, we teach everything on leash and teach, you know, new behaviors using food. If a dog is food motivated or play, we build up the behaviors first, teach the dog what the leash means, teach the dog what sit means, what place means, all of this stuff first. And then we layer the e-color on top of that at the lowest level that the dog feels the sensation. We teach the dog how to turn that stem off. We're basically treating it just like how we teach the leash, how we teach the dog to give into leash pressure. Same thing. And it's not until the dog understands the e-color and how to turn it off that we use it for punishment. All of these studies that are citing e-color use and punishment and training, and I'm saying all of these studies, I'm sure that there are some that are not using e-colors at a high level, but these studies, the ones that I'm reading, they are not using e-colors in the way that good balanced trainers are using e-collars. And so it's really skewing the data and skewing people's perception of these tools because we're using these tools in as worst-case scenario in studies when as a dog trainer, I'm not blasting dogs on the highest level pretty much ever. There might be a dog here and there that we have to correct, you know, one time at a high level, but the dog knows where the correction is coming from. They know what behavior is eliciting this correction. The research around these tools is not a good representation of good e-color training and also the benefit and welfare of animals. Like there has to be some sociological studies done that's like, okay, yes, we see a spike in cortisol, but also there are plenty of other moments in a dog's life where cortisol spikes. You know, I'm sure if we studied reactive dogs and took samples of their saliva after being reactive, their cortisol is spiked. And so who's to say that a, you know, correction from an e-collar is that much worse than allowing a dog to exist in a state of anxiety and you know, spiked cortisol all day, every day, because we haven't trained them, because we have no way of telling them, hey, you don't have to do this. You don't have to be this way. Like there is another way. Just communicating with them in that moment and disrupting those behaviors, in my mind, that is so much more aversive than a lot of these tools. That is so much, it's so aversive to let a dog exist in that state and just stand there and watch them and wait for them to hopefully bring themselves back down so that we can reward them. I think that is that is what is aversive. And that is really what I would love to see studied is okay, let's study the other side of things. Let's study the force-free side of things. Let's measure cortisol spikes in dogs after they're, you know, reacting. And then let's, you know, take them to a good balance trainer and then let's measure their stress levels when they're no longer reacting. Like, let's do these types of studies. Let's study good e-collar training, good balance training instead of measuring worst case scenario. And, you know, last week's, I'll say last week, even though it's been like a month, but last week's episode, the PLOS one study, that is like stringing dogs up, kicking dogs, yelling at dogs at a high rate per training session. Almost every training session, these trainers are doing that with these dogs. And we're saying that that is getting lumped in with good balance training. It's just not the case. And anybody who uses

How Balanced E Collar Training Works

SPEAKER_00 26:55

these tools understands that you see the dogs that come into you for training, you see the owners that are struggling with their dogs because they don't want to tell them no because they're scared that they're gonna ruin their relationship, they're scared to use these tools, they're scared to put structure, they've been told that you can do this without aversives, you can do this, and I'm sure you can. I'm sure you can, but why allow a dog to suffer in that state for that long? So that's that's the stuff that I want to see. And there's actually a paper that kind of breaks this down a little bit. A 2026 paper in Frontiers in Veterinary Science documented that the professional dog training landscape has become politicized with training method choices tied to moral identity and ideological affiliation rather than evidence. And this paper flagged real methodological problems across the existing literature. Correlation, study designs that cannot establish cause and effect, convenience samples from schools that are already committed to one method, and expectancy bias in observational coding. So, what that means is that the people who are observing these studies already have a bias on this stuff because that is who is doing this research. And is also why I really liked this Schulk study because you could tell that it was not going in with this initial bias. Like they really just wanted to study the effects of these tools and the predictability factor into this. So here's what I think the research would need to show to be fair. A study comparing reward-only training versus balance training as actually practiced, which means full behavior foundation first, then e-color introduced unknown behaviors at the lowest level possible with a clear off signal. And until that study exists, we are comparing apples to very different kinds of apples. So the research is limited and is often not studying what balance trainers actually do. Let's talk about what we actually do. The e-caller is never a teaching tool in skilled balance training, it is simply a communication tool that gets layered over behaviors that the dogs already know. And we can use these tools as punishment. There are plenty of studies out there that show that punishment works in stopping behaviors. We can use the e-collars as punishment. I'm not here to say that we never dial up over a certain level. I think that is very misleading as well. But if the dog doesn't know the behavior, the e-collar does not come out. You cannot layer a consequence, you cannot layer the stim over something that the dog doesn't know yet. So we build the behavior completely with positive reinforcement, with our leash. The dog sits, the dog comes, the dog goes to place, they walk on a loose leash. They have to do these things first many, many times, and then we can layer the tool over. We have to proof the behavior across different environments and distractions, and the behavior needs to exist under real world conditions. First, we find the dog's working level on the e-collar, and this is the lowest level the dog notices. This is not the level that the dog reacts to with discomfort. This is just the dog noticing it. And then we can apply the stim. We give the known cue. The moment the dog performs the behavior, the stim stops. So the dog learns, I can turn this off. I know how. I do the thing. This is how we avoid that dog shutting down, going, oh my gosh, I don't know how to turn this off. So I'm just gonna shut down because I don't know what to do. That learned helplessness. And we're gonna repeat this until the dog is offering the behavior to turn off the stim before you ever need to cue it. So now they're working on the e-collars themselves. So why does this remove the stress? It goes back to our schulk study. The dogs who were not stressed were the ones who could predict the stim and control the outcome with their behavior. That is exactly what this type of e-collar training creates. The dog has full predictability, full control, and a clear known behavior to execute. The collar does not become a source of anxiety because the dog is never confused. They know what it means and they know what to do and they know how to turn that stim off. I can't speak. So a dog in a balanced training session with a properly introduced e-collar is not a dog who is tense or flat or avoidant. These are dogs who are switched on, they are paying attention, they are moving confidently because they understand the rules of the game. There is no ambiguity. Contrast that with the dogs in the research studies who do not know what the stim means or how to make it stop. Of course, those dogs are stressed, of course, their cortisol rises, the methodology creates uncertainty, and the dog's nervous system is responding accordingly to that. Now, here is the part

What Research Still Misses

SPEAKER_00 33:15

that I find most interesting. What this methodology reveals about the gap between what research studies and what experienced trainers know. So, this is what the science has not figured out yet. The entire framework described above has not been studied. The research on e-collars does not distinguish between this approach and using the collar as a primary teaching mechanism or just slapping the tool on and correcting the dog when they don't know how to turn that off. And this matters because if you ran a study comparing the random group from shulk against a dog trained with this balanced approach, you would likely see dramatically different welfare outcomes. Not because one group used a color and one didn't, but because one group had that predictability and one did not. One of the most important things experienced balanced trainers understand is that the dog needs a clear way to turn the stem off. This is not just a training preference. It's honestly animal welfare. Now there is a camp of trainers that don't believe in conditioning the e-color quite like I do. Um, they don't do the low-level e-collar stim, layering over, teaching the dog how to turn it off. I believe, and I don't really know because I have not learned from these trainers, but I believe that they still are teaching behaviors first and then holding the dogs accountable to whatever it is. I don't know that they do it with obedience or if it's just like behavioral situations. So for example, we layer e-color over place. I know that the other camp of e-collar trainers don't do stuff like that because their belief is that we're just teaching the dog to tolerate higher levels on the e-collar, and they would rather the e-collar just be a correction itself. So I don't necessarily know that they do it with obedience. I believe that they do, but it's only after the dog understands like what the behavior is. So the e-color in that sense is also still predictable. So it's still not what a lot of these research articles are showing e-color training is. Even if you don't do that conditioning stage, the dogs are still taught behaviors and know why a punishment is happening or why a punishment event is happening. I would hope. I think so. I don't really know. I'm gonna need somebody else to reach out to me and uh let me know if you are a part of this camp of trainers or have learned from them or know what they're doing. But, anyways, I guess my takeaway and my opinion on all of this is I hadn't up until this point, I hadn't really looked into a lot of the science because the science in dog training, I just always knew it was a little biased because the people who are preaching the science are the people on the other side of the fence from me. And I'm not anti-force-free. Like, do your thing, you know. If you don't have any issues and with how I train dogs, like I don't have any issues with how you train dogs, and I'm never gonna be the person that has to like bash somebody else's methodology

Bigger Lives For Trained Dogs

SPEAKER_00 36:55

to make myself feel better. All I can do is just be better, right? And show the proof in the dogs that I train and show how happy they are and the lives that they get to live, which also kind of brings up a point of what does your world, what does your dog's world look like after the e-caller? Is their world bigger? You know, and I've had quite a few clients of mine who came to us who are like, we're not gonna use tools, like this is how we want to do things. And we work with them. We totally work with them, but I see their dogs and they continue to struggle. And, you know, they're bringing their dog to class and their dog is being super reactive. They don't have any control of over their dog, they sometimes have to leave class because there's not enough, you know, distance because their dog is so reactive, they can't talk with us after class in the parking lot because their dog is being so reactive to other dogs. Meanwhile, the clients who did adapt to using these tools, their dogs are progressing so much faster. And the dogs are chill now, right? Like they're not popping off at other dogs, they're not super stressed, they're not spinning during the training session and being just like completely unhinged. So their world opens up. They can hang out with us outside in the parking lot, they can take their dogs to a coffee shop, they can do more group classes with us, like they can do so much more. So for me, it's just a no-brainer. And I think if you spend enough time in this space learning from people who are doing good balanced training, it's a no-brainer. It's like these tools open up your dog's world. And I would rather correct my dog and let's say I'm using the e-collar as a punishment to stop a certain behavior. I would rather my dog have a moment of discomfort, a moment of stress, so that they can have a lifetime of more freedom, more adventures with me, more coffee shop visits, more park visits. I get to bring them to my friend's house because they're well behaved. Like trained dogs get to go everywhere. And I would hate for you guys as dog owners to limit your dog's world because of the fear-mongering that happens around these tools. You know, I do think that it's so important to actually break down the science and look at what people are referencing when they're saying e-collars cause stress and e-collars, you know, do all of this damage. Well, let's look into it. Let's look into what is actually being measured here. I hope that this has opened your eyes a little bit. Um, there's there's tons of science out there. I'm gonna keep breaking it down, but those are really the two main studies that

Studies To Send And Housekeeping

SPEAKER_00 40:10

are focused on e-callers right now. Um, if you are listening to this episode and you know of any other studies that you would like to send me, send them my way. I'll read them over. We'll break them down in this podcast and go over kind of what I think. The takeaway from this is do your own research. Don't take my word from it. I will put the sources, I'll put the sources to the articles at the end of the podcast. I think they're also cited in the last episode that we did. So if you guys want to read them for yourself, you totally can. A few little housekeeping things, virtual shadow program. If you guys are interested in becoming a dog trainer or you are a dog trainer and just want to fine-tune your skills a little bit. That is starting on Monday. Very exciting. And I'm going back into the wilderness. We're doing some adventure board and train. So if you guys are interested, if you're on the west coast and want to do a board and train with me, I have some spots open for the end of this year and the beginning of next. Thanks for being here. Miss y'all. We'll see you next week.