Denis Carthy Posted June 15, 2007 Author Share Posted June 15, 2007 (edited) Naturalywild I was at that conference and recall many people i talked to having issues with the research and her conclusions. Denis Do you mean the conference in Canada late last year sometime? Naturalywild I will have to review the notes and audio i have from the presentation and post back a reply. Denis I would be very interested in your notes and memory of what she said.. Naturalywild My thoughts were that she (Schalke) was very much against e-collars - Denis Yes, though its hardly surprising, she has a commercial conflict of interests if she is APDT, hardly what anyone could describe as an 'independant' study, I know a car salesman here in UK, he hopes they will outlaw gas guzzling 4 wheelers, which by pure conincidence are geting very popular and fashionable here Naturalywild someone said she had used this research to outlaw e-collars somewhere in Europe???). Denis She is in Germany and her paper only goes into Applied Animal Behaviour Science in July, others in other countries will try and use it. Her conclusions are specifically aimed at taking them off the market for pet owners, here conclusions are: 5. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that poor timing in the application of high level electric pulses, such as those used in this study, means there is a high risk that dogs will show severe and persistent stress symptoms. We recommend that the use of these devices should be restricted with proof of theoretical and practical qualification required SURPRISE, SURPRISE ;) Edited June 15, 2007 by Denis Carthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Working_Setters Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 (edited) Anybody wanting a copy of this article, PM me your email address and I'll send it to you. I don't think this would breech copyright, since anybody could go to a Uni library and photocopy the article for themselves. In any case, I'll trust you not to tell Edited June 16, 2007 by Working_Setters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyWild Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 (edited) NaturalywildI was at that conference and recall many people i talked to having issues with the research and her conclusions. Denis Do you mean the conference in Canada late last year sometime? No, i was at the APDT conference in Sept. I do agree that e-collars should be restricted unless suitable knowledge and training/supervision is obtained and shouldn't be available to anyone to buy without this (along with many other pieces of equipment). But not the total outlaw of the device. Edited June 16, 2007 by NaturallyWild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Carthy Posted June 16, 2007 Author Share Posted June 16, 2007 (edited) Naturalywild No, i was at the APDT conference in Sept. Denis Is that the one in Canada? you missed out what repeating what Shalke said, can you tell us what she said? Naturalywild I do agree that e-collars should be restricted unless suitable knowledge and training/supervision is obtained and shouldn't be available to anyone to buy without this (along with many other pieces of equipment). Denis So firstly, what is thats statement based on, I mean e-collars come with an adequate video and certainly Dogtra, TT, PAC all have excellent telephone support - so what are your remarks based on? I ask the above because the only grounds I can see for such a statements is that you think that pet owners are thick or something along those lines, so can you explain how you arrive at the above. Do you have a commercial conflict of interests? Here in UK the commercial product known as positive training is the most dangerous form of training and has caused more welfare problems and personal problems for those who have used those services that any other single catastrophy in history, maybe its different there I dont know. Naturalywild But not the total outlaw of the device. Denis Not true, restricting them would remove them from the market. Edited June 16, 2007 by Denis Carthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 (edited) Denis - although your question was directed to NW, and I'm sure he'll return here and respond .... I am compelled to confess that I'm not inclined to appreciate e-collars being completely and freely available to the general dog-owning layperson. Well, I guess moreover, for the e-collar not to be promoted as a general fix-all training tool. The head-collar is similarly promoted. It too comes with DVD's and instructions, and yet time and time again I see them being incorrectly fitted and used. Admittedly, I don't think the head-collar instructions set out the "dangers" of incorrect handling or fitting clearly enough - so some must be said for the thoroughness of instruction. But I believe many people either don't read the information or if they do, don't follow it. I too often hear of dog-owners, who, having some training/behaviour issue or other, saying they've managed their dog's issue in a certain way because they know of someone else who has done similarly. Many people, for example, jump straight to the suggestion of electronic (or other type) anti-bark collars because their dog barks. They don't have the knowledge enough to stop and ask why the dog is barking nor whether the anti-bark collar would be appropriate in their dog's situation. If RT e-collars are promoted as freely as anti-bark collars have been, then yes .... I can identify where issues can develop. Some behaviours are born from anxiety based causes - there are many people who would not know to realise this and innocently (or using your word, perhaps "thickly") seek to address symptom rather than cause. One might suggest that a layperson who is so inclined to merely "correct" a dog's behaviour in the ignorance of understanding what they are doing or whether it is appropriate, could do the same with any training tool. However, I can see it more easily being used incorrectly, as increasing the e-stimulation generally only requires the turn of a dial. Increasing the intensity of a physical correction via a chain or prong requires direct 'muscle' and I think this brings people to being more mindful of what they are doing and to what intensity. ETA: Although I wish they'd get instruction on the correct use of these too, before they start using them incorrectly on their dogs. I would also be concerned that the general lay-person dog owner could become impatient with the dog's training and deliver e-stims at higher levels than they should when their reasons for doing so might translate to poor training on the handler's part in the first place. I admit I err on the side of caution. I am also aware that given the cost of the e-collars it is not likely to be a general household training tool (although anti-bark collars are not exactly few and far between). I think "restricted" use helps to create an opportunity where the dog and the dog's behaviour can first be assessed by someone more "knowing" to determine suitability for e-collar use and to help the owner understand and find the dog's working level stim. Edited June 16, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 (edited) quote]Denis So firstly, what is thats statement based on, I mean e-collars come with an adequate video and certainly Dogtra, TT, PAC all have excellent telephone support - so what are your remarks based on? The manufacturer’s e-collar videos I have seen are extremely limited and do not offer suitable training advice for first time users. I ask the above because the only grounds I can see for such a statements is that you think that pet owners are thick or something along those lines, so can you explain how you arrive at the above. Do you have a commercial conflict of interests? I think it is fair to say the majority of pet owners wouldn’t have a clue about proper training techniques and dog behavior, which is what, should be evaluated and understood before applying a new piece of training equipment to your dog. Not true, restricting them would remove them from the market. It would not remove them from the market it would make sure they are restricted to the sale of people who truly need them by having a qualified trainer assess there dog and the circumstances first half my post went missing *mumbles Edited June 16, 2007 by Jeff Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lablover Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 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. Thanks The spotted devil. Study conclusion: The results of this study suggest that poor timing in the application of high level electric pulses, such as those used in this study, means there is a risk hisk that dogs will show severe persistent stress symptoms. We recommend that the use of these devices should be restricted with proof of theoretical and practical qualification and then the use of these devices should only be allowed in strictly specified situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lablover Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Denis, You seem to frequently belittle and name call, which I think is distasteful, ie Karen Overall - a clown. Have you ever met her? No one of this earth knows how dogs think. For interest how you read another article by Karen Overall. Why electric shock is not behavior modification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonElite Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 It would not remove them from the market it would make sure they are restricted to the sale of people who truly need them by having a qualified trainer assess there dog and the circumstances first Where I agree with somewhat resticting the ecollars, who in your opinion would be a qualified trainer Jeff? NDTF? Delta? Canine Council trainers? Rep of a ecollar company? Vet? How would this be policed, how would people in regional areas that dont have an easy access to a trainer be able to get an assesment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Working_Setters Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 As a general rule I don't favour increased regulation/legislation or employing the addition bureaucrats such an increase entails. Drafting good legislation is very difficult and frequently the legislation we get unduly impacts on the law abiding while doing little to solve the original problem. My thoughts on E-collars are that there are numerous ways to abuse your dog, very few of them cost $500-$1500, which is what a decent E-collar will set you back in Oz. I think this price already limits E-collars to those that are serious about training their dogs (rather than abusing them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyWild Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Denis - Erny and JJ have basically answered my response to your questions and in the following summary of the Schalke lecture i will put a few questions that will further support this. The conference was the APDT conference held in Kansas City Missouri USA Sept 13-17 2006 (the place was like a ghost town ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of lecture and notes from Ester Schalke - "Stress sypmtoms caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations" Initially summarised previous studies and gave questions/problems from studies that needed to be answered 1: Feddersen-Petersen (2000) - 12 dogs varying age/breed/sex/origin/history/training - tested with stopping hunting behaviour, no control group. Observations only taken as gauge to stress. Conclusion of author was results point to considerable amount of suffering 2: Schilder & van der Borg (2004) - 63 dogs varying age/breed/sex/origin/history/training(some with history of e-collars which was utilised in study), control group involved, tested in various training routines (mainly schutzhund) - Observations only taken as gauge to stress. Conclusion of author was dogs trained with electric shocks are more stressed and connect handlers with being shocked. 3: Christiansen et al (2001) - 114 dogs (once again differing breed etc) - tested to stop chasing/attaching sheep (individual or flock) and retested 2yrs later - observations of behavioural effects gauged by owners. Conclusion of author was that it was an efficient method of reducing probability of a dog chasing lifestock and the owners observed no negative side effects. Christiansen observed dogs being more alert 2yrs later. Schalke questions/problems: Issues in studies due to so much variation in the dogs (breed/age/training history etc) as well as potentially low testing numbers. Critical of owners being capable of observing the behaviour correctly (ie not seeing all stress factors). Does these studies compare to real life situations? No physiological data to prove. Does stress vary according to situation? Is there stress when returning to same location of collar use? Individual reactions will vary strongly depending on previous experiences. Schalke study: 14 Beagles reared in same controlled environment Measured saliva cortisol and heart rate Testing to avoid prey, recall, and random use of collar Adaptation period used to provide interest in training area, rabbit (prey), procedures (sampling saliva and heart rate) prior to using collar. Cortisol levels tested in various levels: base, 2 preliminary tests (simple hunt, impeded hunt), main experiment, post test (4 weeks after) They also initially tested cortisol after waiting 50min prior to being able to hunt, which caused higher levels than when hunting. This caused them to alter protocol to sampling cortisol. Shocks were given at the highest level on the collar (Teletakt micro 3000 - current, voltage and duration of impulse were measured using resistances between 500w and 2.2kW to simulate the skin resistance. Testing was terminated when: correct response was given, significant stress was shown, or after 3rd application. Main test involved 3 types: A - Aversion group: shock applied the moment they touched the prey. -an association was easily formed where avoidance occured - resulted in decreased heart rate - showed the lowest increase in cortisol which did not change in the post test (4 weeks later) H - Recall group: shock applied when no response to recall cue ("here") (*recall was not trained with any form of distraction prior to shock being used on recall to chasing rabbit) - decreased heart rate - increased cortisol up to 160% which increased further to 207% post test (4 weeks later) - base levels were however also higher R - Random group: unpredictable application of shock, so association could not be applied - increased heart rate - increased cortisol 327% which increased further to 586% post test Conclusions Group H & R which mimicked bad owner timing & insufficient training, the cortisol levels rose considerably, clearly indicting stress. The cortsol levels for group A was actualy less than levels when hunting impeded (stress is reduced if the punishing stimulus to a certain behaviour or object is associated). Heart rate increased in R group, but decreased in A & R groups. General use of shock collars is not consistent with animal welfare -should not be used by pet owners -should only be used by dog trainers if proven theoretical and practical qualifications and used in specific situations. Stated that in Germany, the laws regarding collars are being/going to be changed so need qualification to use collars based on this study. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of my issues with study and conclusions The fact that higher cortisol levels are achieved in impeded hunt than with direct association of shock - would have thought this be a point to talk about - eg that fact that frustration causes more stress than a well timed positive punishment association. To me this opens up a huge debate in regards to "positive" training eg clicker training, as there is far too many people that cause frustration and do not teach how to get past being frustrated (they don't know how to change their rate of reinforcement, criteria, timing, etc), yet it is claimed to be dog friendly technique. The issue with dog training is that regardless of the tools or techniques being used there is a need for skilled teachers to show the owners how to train correctly, otherwise negative results to the dog are highly possibly. Few people i believe have the skills to get techniques and skills correct when given an information pamphlet/book or basic video, it really takes hands on work and teaching to get them to "perfect" the techniques. If this wasn't so then there would not be so many "dog trainers" around these days, the business is booming, which clearly shows a need for them. The fact that the H group showed a lowered heart rate but increased cortisol level was explained insufficiently. The fact that cortisol was increased was simply the direct explination of stress, not heart rate. The R group seemed to me to be not a completely realistic situation, as totally random applications are not as likely as applications that were poorly timed, giving some oppertunity for an association (just a much harder oppertunity). No details given in regards to signs of stress that were taken to terminate experiments. Her concluding statement to me seems to far too broad in how it is directed (shock collars are not consistent with animal welfare). While this may be true in regards to specific situations such as poorly timed use of collar along with poor training, it is definitely not proven (infact probably disproves it) in situations where the tool is used correctly. Should not a statement about impeding dogs from doing what they want be considered not consistent with animal welfare considereing the increased in cortisol levels. I would like to see further studies examining both behavioural reactions as well as physiological and to include experimentation that involves "positive" training that causes frustration, but also e-collar training that involves low level stimulation techniques. DenisHere in UK the commercial product known as positive training is the most dangerous form of training and has caused more welfare problems and personal problems for those who have used those services that any other single catastrophy in history, maybe its different there I dont know. How has this become so (according to who, and how measured, it seems like an extremely large sweeping statement to make - just like saying ecollar are not consitent with animal welfare)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonElite Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Shocks were given at the highest level on the collar Testing was terminated when: correct response was given, significant stress was shown, or after 3rd application. H - Recall group: shock applied when no response to recall cue ("here") (*recall was not trained with any form of distraction prior to shock being used on recall to chasing rabbit) R - Random group: unpredictable application of shock, so association could not be applied Conclusions General use of shock collars is not consistent with animal welfare -should not be used by pet owners -should only be used by dog trainers if proven theoretical and practical qualifications and used in specific situations. My conclusion is - whoever did did study has no idea on how to use ecollars and should not be allowed to be performing such studies as they are not consistent wtih animal welfare!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 (edited) My thoughts on E-collars are that there are numerous ways to abuse your dog, very few of them cost $500-$1500, which is what a decent E-collar will set you back in Oz. I think this price already limits E-collars to those that are serious about training their dogs (rather than abusing them). On last checking (admittedly, some 6 months or so ago) there are e-collars that are considerably less than $500.00 and certainly not so unaffordable that the wanten problematic-dog owner might not consider it an option, if it were a widely known and used training tool. The person un-educated to e-collars is less likely to chose a collar on the 'finer attributes' many of the better collars sport. They are more likely to be influenced on price only. I agree that if someone WANTS to abuse their dog, there are many other and cheaper ways of going about it. But I can see where it is far too easy to abuse a dog - not through intent but as a result of the uneducated use of an e-collar. More than it would by any same physical level of applied correction - simply because with the e-collar there is no more effort on the part of the dog's owner in the application of what might otherwise be an excessive correction than there is of a lower stim. Physical corrections require physical administration by the handler. They cannot help but be aware of the increase of the latter form of correction. In Victoria, restricted use of the e-collar is already legislated. ETA: In my opinion extra care is also required so the dog is not likely to pair the e-stim with the wrong behaviour or element within the proximate environment. This is something the novice handler often has not given thought to, until having it explained by someone with some degree of knowledge of the collar and its possible affects. Edited June 17, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Where I agree with somewhat resticting the ecollars, who in your opinion would be a qualified trainer Jeff? NDTF? Delta? Canine Council trainers? Rep of a ecollar company? Vet? at the moment i would be happy if people had to seek advice from either someone qualified from the NDTF or Delta ( ). I would be happy if in NSW they had similar stipulations to those placed in Victoria. How would this be policed, The same way the sale of prong collars are, by issuing suitable people with permits. how would people in regional areas that dont have an easy access to a trainer be able to get an assesment? They wouldnt untill they got an assessment... at the moment in Victoria i believe you need to obtain approval from a Veterinarian and a dog trainer before you may use an e-collar, in NSW you cannot use an e-collar, so where it may be restricting some it may be opening the door for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonElite Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 at the moment i would be happy if people had to seek advice from either someone qualified from the NDTF so anyone that finished NDTF course would be OK?or Delta ( ). :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 (edited) You seem to frequently belittle and name call, which I think is distasteful, ie Karen Overall - a clown. Have you ever met her? LL : In fairness, I don't think Denis was 'name-calling' .... I read his post as simply a response to (invited?) thoughts on Karen Overall's work in relation to 'scientific' studies. There are some people I haven't met, but don't think much of them through what I have heard and of their writings I have read. This is not to say they are not nice or good people in general nor that they don't have something to contribute to the dog-world. I have enjoyed some of Karen's written work in relation to the behaviour of dogs but admittedly have not investigated/researched/critiqued as to how they stack up 'scientifically'. I appreciate the finer points Denis has highlighted in the comparison of the two e-collar research papers mentioned. Kind of like sharpening a pencil ..... although in this case, my eyes - to not merely be daunted by the fact they are documented research papers but to look more closely at the fine print .......................... and perhaps the print that isn't even there. Edited June 17, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Yes, if that trainer has assessed the dog and believes an e-collar would be the best tool to use in the aid of training the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonElite Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 I guess my question Jeff is - would you consider anyone that has done NDTF course a trainer that could assess the dog? And a person that has a dog and is thinking about getting an ecollar could go to anyone that has the NDTF certificate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyWild Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 (edited) I guess my question Jeff is - would you consider anyone that has done NDTF course a trainer that could assess the dog? And a person that has a dog and is thinking about getting an ecollar could go to anyone that has the NDTF certificate? I think that regardless of what training is obtained (NDTF, Delta, or others) there are going to be some trainers that do still not have the skills and knowledge to know how to utilise an e-collar and properly assess a dog (just as you get suspect people in other areas eg doctors etc), but it is a much better indication that they will be able to provide the skills and knowledge required. Edited June 17, 2007 by NaturallyWild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Hi Myszka What i was trying to get at is, instead of having e-collars outright banned as they are in NSW it would be better adopting similar rules to what they have in place in Victoria. Naturallywild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now