Latest E-collar Research No Stress

[Denis Carthy]

This is the very latest up to date research carried out at Hanover uni 1 [E. Shalke et al ]

My understanding is that Schalke is an APDT member [Association of Pet Dog Trainers, US & UK], she addressed an APDT North American conference late last year.

If she is an APDT member, and I am not 100% sure, then she has a commercial conflict of interests against e-collars, nevertheless this latest research proves that correct use of e-collars does not cause significant stress, in this case the dogs from group A were taught first which action was unwanted (correct use) Groups B & C were not taught properly (incorrect use)

The result

Group A ( correct use)

This led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators.

Ref:

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Volume 105, Issue 4, July 2007, Pages 369-380

Veterinary Behavioural Medicine

E. Schalkea, , , J. Stichnotha, S. Otta and R. Jones-Baadeb

aDepartment of Animal Welfare and Behaviour, Veterinary School of Hannover, Buenteweg 2, 30559 Hannover, Germany

bClemensstrasse 123, 80796 Muenchen, Germany

Edited June 15, 2007 by Denis Carthy

[Denis Carthy]

Hi guys, if any e-people want more info just PM me your email - Time to rub Dr Worthlesses nose in it.

[Lablover]

I have seen collar conditioning in the US, quite a long process.

As every trainer or highly regarded amateur trainer has stated, the beauty of the collar is that is it so easy to use. The other side in inexperienced hands, abuse is just as easy.

[Denis Carthy]

lablover

abuse is just as easy.

Denis

I know thats what I was thinking yesterday when I saw someone walking down the street with a dog on a collar and lead - I thought, if he abuses that dog he will hang it.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Denis Carthy

[Lablover]

Denis,

I have seen wanton abuse also, when a dog fails and trainers beat their dogs up behind a tree. Our limbs can be dangerous, hands and feet.

The main reason why I have organised 3 seminars, by US trainers. They do teach teach teach teach teach. Very well actually.

[Denis Carthy]

Lablover

he main reason why I have organised 3 seminars, by US trainers. They do teach teach teach teach teach. Very well actually.

Denis...........scratches head......makes coffee.................reads again and.....well.....then he................

Ok ya got me, whats your post related to?

Edited June 15, 2007 by Denis Carthy

[Lablover]

Lablover

he main reason why I have organised 3 seminars, by US trainers. They do teach teach teach teach teach. Very well actually.

Denis...........scratches head......makes coffee.................reads again and.....well.....then he................

Ok ya got me, whats your post related to?

Sorry Denis, you are supposed to be able to read my mind.

They teach well, how to escape/avoid pressure.

[Denis Carthy]

Denis originally wrote

This is the very latest up to date research carried out at Hanover uni 1 [E. Shalke et al

Lablover now writes

Sorry Denis, you are supposed to be able to read my mind.

Denis

Are sure your on the right board – I am under the very strong impression this is a dog board, you seem to be relating in some kind of mystical psychic board style.

Lablover

They teach well, how to escape/avoid pressure.

Denis

Who do? Are you talking about mind reading gurus, psychics, hippies or what?

This post is about an update study on a type e-collars by Shalke, what are you talking about which is relevant?

[Lablover]

Denis,

Do you know or heard of Karen Overall from the University of Pennsylvania? I would greatly enjoy to hear her views.

Has your latest information, been under peer review?

[Denis Carthy]

Lablover

Do you know or heard of Karen Overall from the University of Pennsylvania? I would greatly enjoy to hear her views.

Denis

I know some of her stuff, no one takes any notice of it, she has nothing on e-collars which is even close to scientific, she's considered a clown of science.

Lablover

Has your latest information, been under peer review?

Denis

I referenced it the first post, no idea who's reviewing it, here it is again - I am afraid I must repeat my questions, what are your other posts relevant to?

Ref

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Volume 105, Issue 4, July 2007, Pages 369-380

Veterinary Behavioural Medicine

Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations

E. Schalkea, , , J. Stichnotha, S. Otta and R. Jones-Baadeb

aDepartment of Animal Welfare and Behaviour, Veterinary School of Hannover, Buenteweg 2, 30559 Hannover, Germany

bClemensstrasse 123, 80796 Muenchen, Germany

Edited June 15, 2007 by Denis Carthy

[The Spotted Devil]

Has your latest information, been under peer review?

Hi Lablover

I just read the article for myself - not thoroughly as I don't have the time atm. It's in a published journal, so yes it is peer reviewed. There was no significant increase in cortisol (often indicative of stress) for group A - these dogs received an electric pulse the moment they touched the prey item. The other 2 groups showed significant increases in cortisol when compared to group A. Group H received an electric pulse when they did not obey a recall command having previously been trained to recall. Group R received random electric pulses that were unpredictable and out of context.

Schalkea, E. Stichnotha, S. Otta and R. Jones-Baadeb, 1997, 'Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations', Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Vol 105, No. 5, pp 369-380.

Edited June 15, 2007 by The Spotted Devil

[Erny]

Interestingly, the research material given by LL in other thread "Training dogs with help of the shock collar" by Matthijs B.H. Schilder and Joanne A.M. van der Borg purports to suggest training with e-collar produces more stress in the dog.

Whereas the research material given by Denis "Clinical signs caused by the use of the electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations" by E. Schalke, J. Stichnoth, S. Ott and R. Jones-Baade concludes that animals did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators with the e-collar as the learning tool, provided they were able to clearly associate the e-stimulus with their action. (And without intending bias pre-reading the material, isn't this akin with the natural "Laws of Learning" of any animal anyway?)

Noteably, both pieces of research material have been produced by "ScienceDirect (Animal Behaviour Science)" and both make references to many of the same reference materials.

I am yet to thoroughly read each but I expect that the comparisons will prove interesting and enlightening. At least, I hope so.

It will also be interesting to see if the differences in approach to the experiments conducted to achieve their respective conclusions will be like comparing apples with apples, or apples with oranges.

Thanks for the information.

Always look forward to a bit of open-minded learning.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Erny

[The Spotted Devil]

Erny,

Thanks for the heads-up on that article. Just had a very quick skim of it - it only measures behavioural reactions and not cortisol. An integration of a number of physiological and behavioural measures would be preferable. I think it actually does agree in part with this latest study because the dogs were given an electric pulse when they disobeyed a command such as walking too far ahead or not letting go of the target. So these dogs are similar to Group H.

[Denis Carthy]

Erny

Interestingly, the research material given by LL in other thread "Training dogs with help of the shock collar" by Matthijs B.H. Schilder and Joanne A.M. van der Borg purports to suggest training with e-collar produces more stress in the dog.

Denis

It was an obsolete collar, used on extreme dogs, the paper gave any reader two choices of training methods, you either used the collars involved [obsolete this past 20 years] or you used the other methods which were-

332

4.3.

“handlers of non-shocked dogs admitted that they use prong collars, and that their dogs experienced beatings and other harsh punishments, such as kicks or choke collar corrections.”

332

4.3.

We have not proved that the long-term welfare of the shocked dogs is hampered.

The study was not scientificaly sound and is not a ref for e-collars as the collar was obsolete, below are the dog types observed in the study -

Hey - would anyone like to do some doggie dancing with those dogs - bit of heelwork to music would be fine.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Denis Carthy

[Working_Setters]

Has your latest information, been under peer review?

It's in a published journal, so yes it is peer reviewed.

Just to clarify for those not in the research game, not everything you read in a published journal is peer reviewed. Many of the popular science type mags aren't. While most "official" type publications are peer reviewed, there are a few that aren't, PNAS for eg, also the quality of the peer review varies.

That said, I agree with TSD, this is a reputable peer reviewed journal.

[The Spotted Devil]

Thanks for clarifying that...a bit vague on my part.

[Erny]

Hey - would anyone like to do some doggie dancing with those dogs - bit of heelwork to music would be fine.

Ewwwwwww ..................... me thinks some, ummmm, personal body protection would be the go there, if one was game.

So - if these dogs, who've been put through some harsh training, were the "types" used in the Schilder study, how does one draw a confident conclusion that the use of the e-collar during the course of the study was the cause for their signs of stress?

[Denis Carthy]

Erny

So - if these dogs, who've been put through some harsh training, were the "types" used in the Schilder study, how does one draw a confident conclusion that the use of the e-collar during the course of the study was the cause for their signs of stress?

Denis

The entire study was a joke, no blinds at all for a start off, the numbers of dogs and which dogs were shocked are in conflict throughout and his ultimate conclusion to 'stop' using e-collars was to eliminate them from breeding and presumably the police can just shout "Hey, put that gun down you naughty man you" and all will end happily ever after but as I said - the Shilder study is not a reference work for e-collars anyway, worth a laugh, no more.

333

4.5

less temperamental and less forceful dogs should be bred. This also would decrease the chance

that dogs make mistakes for which they could receive punishment.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Denis Carthy

[Rom]

So - if these dogs, who've been put through some harsh training, were the "types" used in the Schilder study, how does one draw a confident conclusion that the use of the e-collar during the course of the study was the cause for their signs of stress?

Good question. You'd think as a control that they'd have made observations of the level of stress behaviours when the handlers were not present, when the e-collar wasn't being worn, or when the dog wasn't in work mode. If they have done that they didn't say.

[NaturallyWild]

I was at that conference and recall many people i talked to having issues with the research and her conclusions. I will have to review the notes and audio i have from the presentation and post back a reply. My thoughts were that she (Schalke) was very much against e-collars - someone said she had used this research to outlaw e-collars somewhere in Europe???).

Will post back in the next few days with a summary.