Treating Anxiety/fear Aggression

[Lou Castle]

Yes - it was the Schilder one. And in that same thread (was it this one? Yes .... think it might have been) the Schalke study was also referred to. The problems in relation to the report were also discussed.

Yes, I saw that. Amhailte brought them up and then showed some weaknesses in both studies, and another one I think. I have tons of info on the Schilder study, it's VERY poor science. I felt no need to comment as no one gave any support for it.

I don't recollect that Pinnacle made any attempt to refute the issues raised about the basis of experiment as described in the report

I don't recall seeing anything from her either.

Why is it that when some people post they take it as a personal attack when the content of that post is questioned?

Probably for several reasons. One is that they're not used to anyone disagreeing with them. They stand around with the nodding heads, spouting their opinion and they're rarely called on it. When it does happen, even though it's done politely, they have a fit. We can see this with poodlesplus who started a new thread to discuss how badly he'd been abused here. LOL.

Why is it that the common retort by those same people is that those who don't agree (even if they can make statements and provide links to information to support their reasons for not agreeing) "don't want to hear?"

Because they have nothing else to say. The truth is that most people who use aversives and Ecollars DO have open minds. If not, we'd have never found our way to them. Most of us have tried other methods and found them wanting, that's my situation anyway. I still use so-called "all positive methods" when they're appropriate, but they're not always appropriate. The "believers" in those methods have almost a religious zeal about them and believe that they're always appropriate and that they always work. The sad fact is that both statements are false.

[Sarah L]

Electronic Training Devices: A Review of Current Literature

by Jo Jacques, CPDT, CPCT and Sandy Myers, CDBC

Contents

This research is divided into four main areas:

1. Electronic training devices and how they work

2. Physiological effects

3. Psychological effects

4. Effects on learning

A Summary is included at the conclusion of this article, along with explanations of electrical

terms (Appendix A) and Internet resources (Appendix B).

Introduction

The use of electronic devices to train animals is a controversial issue that elicits strong

emotions. This literature review summarizes currently available scientific research concerning

the effects of electronic training devices and related issues. The role of a literature review is to

find and present pertinent work from peer-reviewed journals that publish original research

findings. The literature is then presented in a logical, organized manner. Every effort was made

to give a synopsis of the research without personal opinion or conjecture.

Electronic Training Devices and How They Work

.Remote collar,. .electronic collar,. and .shock collar. are terms used to describe

electronic training devices. Common variables of all of these devices include the level of shock

or stimulation, the quality of the equipment, and the person with the control device. In Handbook

of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. 3 (2005), Lindsay

explains in detail the electrical engineering that goes into these collars (pp. 570-573). There is no

evidence of standardization for electronic training devices, and the quality varies from one

manufacturer to the next. Some manufacturers have developed collars that have a wide range of

settings and the ability to administer various levels of electricity. High-quality collars

consistently produce a less unpleasant sensation when they are on a low to medium setting.

In the simplest terms, electrical stimulation can be categorized by levels: low, medium,

and high. Low-level electrical stimulation creates a tickle and tingle effect, mid-level electrical

stimulation enables the handler to annoy or startle, and high-level electrical stimulation is

believed to produce significant pain and distress in dogs (Lindsay, 2005, pp. 575-577). It would

be far too difficult within this article to discuss each and every possible level of electrical

stimulation; therefore, these three categories will be used exclusively throughout this paper. The

experimental studies cited below used electrical stimulation at various levels.

In experiments that applied shock to the feet, Lessac and Solomon (1969) determined that

leg flexion required around 0.08 mA electric intensity and elicited a yelp response at 2.80 mA

(1969). Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines flexion as a bending movement around a

joint or limb (www.merriamwebster.com, accessed January 28, 2007). In a similar study, Brush

determined that avoidance learning increased with shocks up to 4.8 mA, with the desire to escape

appearing above 5.0 mA intensity (1957).

To understand the physical effect of a shock collar, it is necessary to look at the closedcircuit

values. Pulse duration and pulse repletion rate are very important factors in determining

the collar.s adverse effects. In 1991, Kaczmarek wrote that the collar will be more aversive when

the electrical pulse is longer and the repetitions are more rapid. Current passed through narrow

electrodes, as used in e-collars, causes significantly less discomfort than the same current passed

through wider diameter electrodes (Lindsay, 2005, p. 775).

The length of coat, hydration of the dog, how the dog holds his head, and amount of dirt

and debris on the dog are also factors in the amount of electronic stimulation/shock the dog

receives. Other factors that affect the degree of stimulation include the size and type of

electrodes (as noted above), distance between electrodes, voltage and amperage levels, as well as

the impedance of the tissue at the sites of contact with the electrodes. Impedance is defined as

how much resistance the electricity encounters to complete a circuit, or electric charge

(http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com, accessed 28 July, 2006). The greater the tissue

impedance, the less electrical conductivity is seen; conversely, less tissue impedance results in

greater electrical conductivity. Tissue impedance is affected not only by the location of the

electrodes, but by the amount of connective tissues and fat deposits, as well (Ahn, Wu, Badger,

Hammerschlag, & Langevin, 2005; Tagliabue, et al., 2001).

Physiological Effects

To determine whether electronic training devices cause physical stress, it is necessary to

look at the animal.s physiological reaction to these training devices. By looking at scientific data,

we are better able to make an educational assessment. There are several studies cited below that

enable us to observe documented changes in heart rate and cortisol levels when electric shock is

being used. For the purposes of the following discussion, .stress. is defined as .a physiologic

condition in response to environmental or psychological pressures. These pressures are referred

to as stressors. This condition is accompanied by, but not limited to, elevation in corticosteroid

levels and may be accompanied by concurrent behavioral changes. (Marder & Voith, 1991).

Behavioral, saliva cortisol, and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs

(Beerda, B. (1998). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58, 365-381).

The goal of this study was to establish parameters for determining stress elicited by

different stimuli in dogs. Guidelines for physiological levels indicating stress were determined

from previous studies, one of which showed that when a dog was exposed to noise, heart rate and

cortisol levels increased at 30 seconds and returned to normal at 4 minutes (Engeland, 1990).

The dogs in the Beerda study were exposed to a loud noise, electric shock (estimated to

be medium level electrical stimulation, or MLES), a bag dropped from the ceiling, physical

restraint, and an umbrella opening. Body posture, saliva cortisol levels, heart rate, and behavior

responses were analyzed. The average heart rate for dogs in the study was 75 BPM (beats per

minute). Heart rate following the presentation of stimuli increased to an average of 160 BPM.

The base saliva cortisol level for dogs in the study was 6.0nmol/1. Saliva cortisol levels, on

average, increased to 13nmol/1 following the presentation of stimuli.

The results of this study showed that the greatest increase in cortisol levels occurred

when dogs were exposed to loud noise, a bag dropped from the ceiling, and electric shock. The

time necessary to return to the baseline heart rate was longer when the dogs were exposed to the

loud noise and the bag. Heart rates were not measured when the dogs were exposed to electric

shock (monitors were removed to guard against equipment damage from electrical currents).

This study reported behavioral responses of very low body posture to the dropped bags, loud

sounds, and shock, while the restraint and umbrella responses included restlessness, defined as

high levels of body shaking and verbal behaviors (social communication). The authors of the

study were quite clear in stating that while the stress responses to the bag, sound, and shock were

distinctly higher than to the restraint and umbrella stimuli, the fact that a human was present in

the restraint and umbrella tests enabled the dog to anticipate the stimuli before they occurred.

This study is a good example of signs of stress, positive as well as negative associations

to humans, and the increase of stress when electric shock is used in unpredictable situations.

Several studies have noted a change in the physiological effect on the dog when in the presence

of a person. It is important to understand these effects when looking at physiological reactions to

electronic training devices, because a human is often a component in the equation.

Note: We personally believe that while this study was a good example of using cortisol to

measure stress, that was the only hormone measured. However, other studies have shown that

cortisol is not the only hormone affected under stressful conditions. In fact, since cortisol level is

used as a determinant when diagnosing various adrenal autoimmune disorders, we.re left

wondering if the levels obtained may have been influenced by other conditions.

The effects of petting on classically conditioned emotional response (Lynch, J.J. & McCarthy,

J.F. (1996). Behavior Research and Therapy, 5(1), 55-62).

In this study, the authors observed the physiological effects of human contact on the dog.

The research found that the dogs. heart rate increased when a tone was followed by an electric

shock of a medium level. The electric shocking device used was a high-voltage system, onesecond

shock, different for each dog according to the dog.s reaction at each interval. The level of

shock used was intense enough to cause the dog to fully flex his leg off the table.

Heart rate was measured during a 10-second tone-shock sequence (conditioned

reinforcer, or CR) for three separate conditions: dog alone; person present but no physical

contact; and person petting the dog. The initial results showed that when the dog was alone, the

tone (CS) caused the dog to anticipate the shock, resulting in an increased heart rate from 82

BPM to 150 BPM (9 seconds prior to the shock). When the person was in the room but not

making contact, the dog.s heart rate initially decreased to 80 BPM right after the tone, but rose to

150 BPM just before the shock was administered. The last sequence consisted of a person petting

the dog during the tone-shock sequence; the dog.s heart rate was recorded at approximately 70

BPM during the tone phase. (The normal rate for a dog is approximately 70 BPM.)

Initially, the presence of a person decreased the dog.s heart rate. However, the authors

found that after two or three days the heart rate decrease was extinguished when a person was

present. A conclusion can therefore be drawn that the physiological reaction of the dog to the

presence of the human initially lowered stress. However, the authors concluded that, over time,

the value of the human as a de-stressor was extinguished.

Are we dog.s best friend? Predicting canine cortisol response from human affiliative and

punitive behaviors (Jones, A.C. & Josephs, R.A. Current Issues and Research in Veterinary

Behavioral Medicine 2005 . Papers Presented at the 5th International Veterinary Behavior

Meeting, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press:194-197.)

The goal of this study was to determine the physiological influence human behavior has

on dogs. 184 dogs participated in the study, and cortisol levels were measured before and after an

agility competition. The results of this research showed that play and petting decreased cortisol

levels, while punitive behavior (yelling and physical non-play) on the owners. part increased

cortisol levels.

.Affiliating (play, tug of war, chase) behaviours are associated with a lesser increase in

dog.s cortisol levels (beta weight= -0.131); punitive behaviours (yelling, physical pushing) are

associated with greater increase in dogs. cortisol levels (beta weight = 0.119),. the authors

stated. In their conclusion, the authors also said that dogs who frequently had elevated cortisol

levels may suffer from illness, including cognition degradation and physical problems that could

shorten their lives.

Clinical Signs caused by the use of electronic training collars on dogs (Canis familiaris) in

everyday life situations. (Schalke E, Stichnoth J, & Jones-Baade R. Journal of Applied Animal

Behavior Science, doi:10.1016/j.japplanim.2006.11.002

The purpose of this study was to determine whether any stress is caused by the use of

electric shock collars or not, and in this way contribute to their evaluation with respect to animal

welfare. Baseline heart rates and cortisol levels were measured, in addition to measurements

taken at various stages of the study, and their training as well as the experiments themselves

were carried out in a building, in order to remove the influence of external stressors. In

addition,each dog was allocated an individual time slot for training, in order to exclude circadian

deviations. Electronic collars were used to train all of the dogs. The collars were the Teletakt

micro 3000 (ohm levels of 500 to 2.2 kohm). All dogs were trained for three months by the same

trainer to successfully hunt (that is, chase) a dummy rabbit. The dogs were then divided into

three study groups. Group A (Aversive) was trained to avoid prey by receiving a shock at the

precise moment they touched the dummy rabbit, forming an association between touching the

prey and shock. Group H (Here) received additional training to come on command, and were

then tested in a situation where they were asked to avoid prey with a .here. command. If they

did not respond to the .here. cue, they received a shock. Group R (Random) was given a random

electric shock prior to attention toward prey, while hunting, or after the hunting sequence when

the prey had been removed. The timing of the shock was decided by drawing lots.

Prior to any testing, a baseline cortisol level was established for each dog. Preliminary

levels were taken when the dogs participated in two tests (on different days), .Simple hunting.

and .hunting impeded.. .Simple hunting. was when the dogs were allowed to hunt with no

restrictions. .Hunting impeded. was when the dogs were restricted from hunting by using a

leash. Beginning ten minutes after the end of the hunting sequence, five saliva samples were

taken every five minutes. Once divided into the three groups, the main experiment was

conducted. During the main testing phase, electric pulses were given according to the group each

dog was in. Each dog was allowed a maximum of only one shock per day; and heart rates were

continuously monitored. Cortisol levels were tested in 5 minute intervals, beginning 10 minutes

after the application of shock. Post-testing was also performed: during the 4 weeks following the

main test, the dogs had no contact with either the environment or the persons conducting the test.

At the end of that time, they were taken back to the experimental environment, and cortisol and

heart rates were measured (without additional testing).

The dogs in Group R (who received random shock) showed the highest cortisol level of

all three groups, leading the researchers to hypothesize that cortisol increased in this group

because the dogs had no chance to associate their behavior or a warning signal (the cue .here.)

with the punishing stimulus. Group A, the group that received aversive training in association

with prey, had the smallest increase in cortisol levels. Significant differences were also found

when comparing heart rate values between the three groups. As with recorded cortisol levels,

heart rates were highest with Groups R and H, and lowest with Group A.

Comparisons were then made between the preliminary, main, and post-testing phases.

Within Group A (Aversive), cortisol levels were significantly higher during testing than during

preliminary or post testing. In Group H (Here), cortisol levels during post-testing were

significantly higher than the values recorded during testing.

Concerning Group R (Random), however, the levels measured during post-testing were

higher than those gathered during the preliminary testing as well as the main testing phases. The

researchers feel this result corresponds with Polsky’s (1994) statements that poor timing and/or

shock that lasts too long causes a fear of the environment and/or people in dogs.

The ability of the dogs to predict an outcome did affect the level of cortisol increases

seen. Those dogs who had been trained to see prey and avoid it had learned how to avoid the

electrical stimulation. Those dogs who understood .here. but had not learned to respond when

prey was present had increased stress and cortisol when electrical stimulation was given, and

those dogs in the last group could not avoid the electrical stimulation because they had no

predictor of its cause.

The researchers state, .This study indicates that the general use of electronic shock

collars is not consistent with animal welfare. It has to be assumed that pet owners do not have the

sufficient knowledge about training and skill to avoid the risk that dogs will show severe and

persistent stress symptoms.. They further conclude, .The results of this study suggest that poor

timing in application of high 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,

and then the use of these devices should only be allowed in strictly specified situations..

Fear conditioning occludes LTP-induced presynaptic enhancement of synaptic

transmission in the cortical pathway to the lateral amygdala (Tsevtkov, E., Carlezon, W.,

Benes, F., Kandel, E., & Bolshakov, V. (2002) Neuron, 34(2), 289-300).

This study attempted to prove a longstanding theory that learning takes place and

memories are formed when the same message travels repeatedly between specific cells in the

brain. During the study, researchers introduced rats to a sound that was accompanied by an

electric shock to the foot. The shock, while of a low intensity, did cause the rats to be visibly

startled. The day after the rats were trained this way, they were exposed to the sound but were

not shocked. However, the sound still frightened them, even more so than during the initial

training, and their fear increased as time passed.

To determine that there was a physical change, the researchers used the sound to

stimulate rats who had not been trained with electric shock and found there was a flood of nerve

impulses between specific cells in the amygdala. In the trained rats, however, there was no flood

of communication between the cells, showing that the cells had not only retained the training, but

had been physically changed by the experience. The brain change wasn.t temporary.it lasted

for the rest of the rat.s lives (two to three years).

These results indicated that the pathways to the amygdala are modified during the

acquisition of a fear response. The researchers also concluded that the physiological changes

occurring during emotional learning contribute to intense anxiety disorders, including posttraumatic

stress disorder (PTSD), and are what makes these fears so resistant to extinction.

Biobehavioral monitoring and electronic control of behavior (Lindsay, S. (2005). Handbook

of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. 3. Iowa: Blackwell

Publishing, 557-665.)

In his recent book, Steven Lindsay cites many research studies concerning electronic

training devices. In the chapter,.Biobehavioral Monitoring and Electronic Control of Behavior,.

he states that electric shock at high levels can cause distress and emotional harm to dogs (p. 576).

With all the factors and electrical contingencies, the best way to understand the level of electrical

stimulation is to feel it. Contact with electricity causes the body to respond as if injured (at low

levels there is no physical damage).the brain perceives a threat to survival that causes

neurological, psychological (fear of pain), and physiological responses (heart rate and cortisol

levels increase).

High-level electric shock (HLES) causes a neurological response and a perception of

pain, and activates muscular and skin-burning sensations even if there is no physically burned

flesh and although no physical damage has actually occurred. The study specifically stated that

the sensation of burning was perceived even when there was no actual physical injury (Sang

et.al., 2003). Medium-level electric shock (MLES) produces sharp pricking, jabbing sensations.

Low-level electric shock (LLES) causes tapping, tickling, and/or tingling sensations. According

to Lindsay, it is important to remember that high voltage does not mean a higher level of shock;

other variables contribute to the perception of pain, such as ohms, impedance, and the individual

dog.s tolerance, temperament, and relative sensitivity to aversive stimuli.

While many researchers have cited cortisol levels as an indicator of stress, Lindsay

reports that King, et al., (2003) have suggested that heart rate might be a more practical and

sensitive measure of a dog.s reaction to novelty and fear. Other researchers in the field have

found that a reactive pattern of cardiac acceleration and deceleration in response to social and

environmental stressors seems to correlate with an increased vulnerability to reactive social

behavior and susceptibility to stress (Vincent & Mitchell, 1996; Vincent & Leahy, 1997). Blood

pressure and heart rate changes appear to be highly sensitive to traumatic events, and these

conditioned cardiovascular changes may persist or worsen long after the escape/avoidance

behavior has ceased (Dykman & Gant, 1997). Dogs affected by this social anxiety may exhibit

signs of persistent anxiety or arousal, as well as hypervigilance and readiness for defensive

autoprotective behavior. These changes are correlated with heart rate, heart-rate variability

(HRV), and other indicators of autonomic activation. (HRV is the beat-to-beat changes in heartrate

rhythm that occur in response to anxiety and excitement.)

Lindsay also cites research concerning the physiological effect of stress (pp. 562, 579-

580). A study by Beerda, et al., (1998, cited earlier in this paper) reported a nonspecific increase

in heart rate in response to both social and non-social stressors, concluding, .Heart rate increases

should best be regarded as general responses to possibly meaningful events, irrespective of

whether these are appreciated as positive or negative.. Although these researchers could not

demonstrate the existence of discriminative heart rate changes in response to acute social and

nonsocial stressors, they did show differences in HPA (hypothalamic/pituitary/adrenal) activity

of dogs exposed to nonsocial stressors (e.g., loud sound, electric shocks, and a falling bag) versus

dogs exposed to a social restraint (holding the dog down) and startle delivered by a social object

(opening an umbrella in the dog.s direction). The HPA system is brought into play during times

of biological and physiological stress, and stimulates the release of cortisol into the bloodstream.

Dogs who could control the occurrence of shock by escaping had significantly less cortisol

response than dogs who where unable to escape a shock (Dess, et al., 1983).

Lindsay reports on a study done by Anderson and Brady (1971) that found that dogs

exhibit a significant and stable reduction in heart rate and an increase in blood pressure during a

one-hour waiting period immediately preceding a two-hour period of shock-avoidance training.

The dogs were conditioned to a particular schedule of shock training. The divergence between

heart rate and blood pressure steadily increased over the course of the waiting period, with heart

rates becoming lowest and blood pressure becoming highest just before the onset of shockavoidance

training.

Psychological Effects

At issue is the question, .Do electronic training devices elicit psychological responses?.

This section cites several research studies in which the psychological impact of the use of

electronic training devices was analyzed. It is difficult, at best, for anyone to determine the full

psychological effect of these devices or training methods until we can agree on exactly what

constitutes a stress signal in a domestic dog. Not only do none of the researchers agree on what it

is, but it varies from dog to dog. It is even more difficult for humans to determine the full effect

of shock on a dog (or any animal) due to the animal.s hard-wired need to hide pain in order to

survive in the wild.

Training dogs with the help of the shock collar: Short and long term behavioral effects.

(Schilder, M. & van der Borga, J. (2004). Applied Animal Behavior Science, 85, 319-334).

The goal of this study was to determine the behavioral changes in dogs during training

using electronic training collars. Thirty-two dogs were divided into two groups, each receiving

both general obedience and protection training. One group was trained with shock collars and the

other group without shock collars. The dogs trained with the shock collars displayed signs of

stress: lowering of body posture, high-pitched yelps, barks and squeals, avoidance, redirected

aggression, and tongue flicking. It was also noted by the authors that, even during play and

relaxed walking, the group of dogs trained with shock collars continued to show signs of stress

while in the company of their handler.

The authors concluded that shock-collar training is stressful; receiving shocks is a painful

experience to dogs; and the shock group of dogs evidently learned that the presence of their

owner (or his commands) announced the reception of shocks, even outside of the normal training

context. They suggest that the welfare of these shocked dogs is at stake, at least in the presence

of their owners.

This study has come under considerable fire because the experience of the handlers and

dogs is not clear, and the level of shock is not stated. With that said, it does suggest that dogs are

stressed by the experience of being shocked during training.

In rats, sighs correlate with relief (Soltysik, S. & Jelen, P. (2005). Psychology and Behavior.

85, 598-602).

This study was designed to discover if a deep breath (i.e., a sigh) in mammals, which

functions to prevent airlessness in hypoventilated parts of the lungs, can also signify relaxation

or relief. Sighs can be associated with emotions in humans, and, in addition to their respiratory

functions, there may also be a selective facilitation of sighs in animals to indicate fear, anxiety,

or relief.

To induce fear, a .danger. stimulus (a light or a tone) was paired with an electric shock

applied to the tails of rats five times in a daily session. To provide a relief signal, another

stimulus signifying .safety. (a tone or a light), presented before the normally expected shock,

was followed by the omission of the shock. In 16 rats experiencing a shock during the danger

stimulus and a relief during the safety stimulus, the rate of sighing was 7.5 times higher during

relief and 20 times higher between trials. This serves to support the hypothesis that sighs in

social animals may function as a signal of relief.

Effects on Learning

Electronic training devices result in aversive conditioning, once the link is made between

the behavior and the aversive stimuli (electric shock). Aversive stimuli, by definition, cause

discomfort, pain, or an otherwise negative experience. It has been shown that while aversive

conditioning can take place rapidly and can influence the suppression of unwanted behavior, this

suppression is restricted to the presence of the conditioned stimulus after full conditioning has

taken place (Seligman and Johnston, 1968). As well, while aversive conditioning may eliminate

an unwanted behavior, it does not serve to establish an acceptable alternative. This is most likely

due to response blocking.the dog learns that not responding leads to the absence of the aversive

stimuli, and stops responding (Seligman and Johnston, 1968).

Can aggression be elicited through electronic pet containment systems? (Polsky, R.H.

(2000). Journal Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3, 345-357).

The author surmises that the use of electronic containment systems can cause dogs to

attack humans. Five cases involving severe attacks to humans by dogs kept in with electronic

containment systems were analyzed. The information about these cases was derived from legal

documents. An electrical engineer who examined several receiver collars from different

manufacturers reported outputs of 1,500 to 4,500 volts, but no reported levels for mA were

given. In all cases, the dogs did not have a history of any type of aggression before the use of an

electronic containment system. They were all adult males, had received little obedience training,

and most were not neutered.

The attacks happened on or near the boundary and the fence system was working in every

case. Of the victims, all adults were known to the dog, all children were not known. In all cases,

the dog was positioned directly within the signal field, and therefore must have received a shock.

In all but one case, no .dominant-appearing. or threatening action was performed by the victim

toward the dog. In all cases, the dogs gave no warning prior to the attack, and there was repeated

biting of all victims, resulting in serious injuries to head, face, back, and neck.

The author believes the analyzed cases suggest that these dogs became aggressive

because of the electronic containment system. What is not known is the type of training the dog

received when introduced to the containment system, if the dogs spent a lot of time outside

unsupervised, and at what shock level the collars were set. In all cases, the victims were in or

near the signal field and each received several serious bites. According to the author, one factor

that suggested the attacks occurred because of the dog.s exposure to the system was that the

reaction of all dogs was inconsistent with past behavior. Only one dog had ever bitten a human,

and no dog had a marked history of displaying aggression toward humans. As well, since there

were no developmental behavioral histories of these dogs, one would not expect attacks of such

severity.

Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: Primary and secondary repellents (Shivik,

J.A., Treves, A. & Callahan, P. (2003). Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1531-1537).

The purpose of this study was to develop techniques to decrease the conflicts between

humans and wolves when the wolves are seeking prey (cattle, sheep, and dogs) by discouraging

wolves from eating prey left in certain areas. The researchers presented freshly killed carcasses

to groups of wild wolves in specifically demarcated pens. They tested primary repellents (flags,

and a behavior-contingent light and sound device) and secondary repellents (shock collars that

were proximity-activated, using buried perimeter wires) to determine which were most effective

in deterring wolves from eating the killed prey. The researchers calculated the amount of food

consumed prior to, during, and after the testing to determine the efficacy of each type of

repellent.

The wolves in the group inhibited using shock collars had various reactions: running

away, yelping, or appearing mildly annoyed but continuing to consume the carcass. In posttreatment

trials the wolves in all of the test groups consumed all food and none of the aversive

methods had any long-term effect on predation. The level of shock was not disclosed; however,

it was noted that an electronic containment system was used to establish the point at which the

aversive stimuli would be administered.

This study demonstrates the use of aversive techniques in a situation unlinked to the

presence of humans. It also shows how wolves can misinterpret intended links between the

stimuli and shock/pain and/or discomfort. The authors noted that aversive stimuli could be

difficult to apply, as wolves may not associate the pain with the presence of prey, but with

another environmental cue.

Behavioral changes and aversive conditioning in hunting dogs by the second-year

confrontation with domestic sheep (Christiansen, F.O., Bakken, M., & Braastad, B., (2001A).

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 72, 131-143).

The authors of this study were trying to determine the effectiveness of electronic training

devices, as well as observe any long-term effects the use of these devices might have. This study

was conducted over a two-year period and involved 114 dogs. Three hunting breeds participated

in the test: Norwegian Elkhounds, English Setters, and hare hunting dogs. To determine baseline

behaviors, each dog was given a .path test.. During the path test, each dog was exposed to novel

and startling stimuli while being walked on leash by the owner. At this point in the test, each dog

was exposed to a sheep tied five meters away from the dog.

The second test was the .sheep confrontation. test. During this test, each dog wore an

electronic training collar, and for safety reasons, had a long line attached to his collar. Each dog

was released into a sheep pen with a herd of sheep, and if the dog approached within one to two

meters of the sheep, the collar was activated (a one-second shock at 3000V and 0.4 A). Shocks

were administered only if the dog approached the one to two meter distance. Observational data

was collected in both tests, as well as in a questionnaire in which the owner was asked about

their dog.s previous experience with sheep, living environment, response to gunshots, and

aggressiveness toward humans and dogs.

After a year had passed, the tests were repeated. The owners were asked if they noticed

any changes in behavior, interest in sheep, and increase/decrease in aggression toward humans or

dogs. 88 of the dogs in the study were reported by their owners to have no changes in behavior

from the first to second year; 18 of the dogs showed less interest in sheep (one of these had

received a shock the first year and 17 had not received any shock). The owners. observations

were an important element in this study. The level of knowledge and/or expertise of these owners

is unknown and is therefore subject to conjecture.

Second-year testing results showed that dogs who had received a shock the first year

responded or moved away much sooner from the novel stimuli or sheep than they had the

previous year. The second-year tests also showed a decreased number of shocks given to the

dogs who had received a shock(s) the first year. Age, breed, and previous experiences did affect

each dog.s reaction to the sheep from one year to the next: The younger the dog, the less bold his

approach toward the sheep the first year. One year later, those same dogs seemed more confident

and willing to approach. The authors hypothesized that .dogs could not reliably be tested toward

sheep before they are two to three years of age..

As with several of the other research studies reviewed in this paper, each dog is different

in his tolerance and sensitivity to electrical stimulation. The authors did reference the difference

in retained learning between coyotes and dogs. The dogs did learn to inhibit their approach of

sheep from one year to the next, while the inhibition effect for coyotes persists approximately

four months (Andelt et al., 1999).

Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness, and interaction with behaviour and welfare

(Hilby, E.F., Rooney, N.J., & Bradshaw, J.W.S. (2004). Animal Welfare, 13, 63-69).

This study was designed to examine the relative effectiveness of different training

methods and their effects on a pet dog.s behavior. The study results came from evaluating a

questionnaire distributed to and answered by 364 dog owners in the U.K., and was based on how

basic tasks (give/leave an object, heel, sit, down, come, house-training, stealing, chewing) were

trained. The methods reported included punishing the dogs to eliminate behaviors (hitting,

jerking the leash, yelling, etc.) and rewarding the dog for desired behaviors (using play, praise,

and food rewards). Of the respondents, 20.2% used rewards only; 9.8% used punishment only;

9.6% used miscellaneous (i.e., redirection) or no methods; and 60.4% used a combination of

rewards and punishment.

The results show that in four specific areas.house-training, the recall, stealing, and sit.

there was no significant difference in the level of obedience obtained (shown by percentage of

proper behavior shown) among the methods used to train. However, for the rest of the tasks, the

training method that used rewards only achieved a significantly higher rate of obedience than

other methods. Similarly, using rewards only greatly reduced the incidence of problematic

behaviors, including aggression toward people and other dogs, fear, repetitive behaviors, overexcitement,

anxiety, and separation issues.

The results suggest that the use of punishment seemed to be linked to an increase in the

occurrence of the problematic behaviors listed above. The number of times owners reported

using punishment-based methods correlated positively with the number of problem behaviors

seen. While it may be that punishment increased the number of problem behaviors, it.s also

possible that the owners of dogs already exhibiting problem behaviors are more likely to use

punishment when training. Nonetheless, the authors of this study believe that for the general dogowning

public, using rewards exclusively in training may produce a more balanced and obedient

dog, thereby reducing the number of owner-relinquished dogs in shelters.

This study has come under fire due to the method used for collecting the data. As stated

above, the results were obtained by tabulating responses from questionnaires filled out by dog

owners and distributed by veterinarians working with the owners involved in the research project

in order to obtain a ’relative’ effectiveness score. This kind of self-reporting is not objective. A

high percentage of owners reported that, while their dogs showed behavior issues that they

themselves did not regard as a problem, others experiencing the same issues might. This could

suggest that owners who use punishment-based training may be more likely to view their dog.s

behavior in a negative light, while owners using reward-based training may be more likely to

view their dog.s behavior in a positive light. However, since the study examines the efficacy of

training as determined by the owners of these pet dogs, it bears re-examination as owner

perception is one of the strongest indicators of pet retention.

Differential diagnosis and management of human-directed aggression in dogs (Reisner, I.R.

(2003). The Veterinary Clinic Small Animal Practice. 33, 303-320).

This paper was written to give insight into human-directed aggression. The author cites

many studies that show contributing factors and reasons why dogs act aggressively toward

humans (Guy, Luescher, Dohoo, et al. 2001B; Borshelt, 1983; Moyer, 1968; Overall, 1997;

Beerda, Schindler, vanHooff, et al., 1999). Many aggressive behaviors are triggered by anxiety.

Highly sensitive dogs have a greater risk of displaying anxiety-related behaviors: exaggerated

watchfulness, reactivity to a perceived threat, and the inability to perform normal avoid or escape

behaviors. Breeds that are highly sensitive include, but are not limited to, Border Collies,

German Shepherd Dogs, and Australian Shepherds. It is also interesting to note that these are

breeds that are known for their high level of intelligence and trainability. A repeated point of this

paper is the importance of establishing the sensitivity, or level of anxiety of an individual dog

and avoiding aversive training methods, which the author feels has been shown, historically, to

increase aggressive or anxiety-related responses.

Public health authorities report that the most severe dog attacks were committed by dogs

left alone outside for long periods of time (Gershman, 1993). The lack of supervision and

environmental control increases the potential for aggressive behaviors to occur. Therefore, the

author recommends that owners do not rely on underground electronic fencing for containment;

if the dog must be housed outdoors, he should be enclosed in a secure chain-link run or within a

secure, visible fence.

The author also advises that, in order to reduce aggression, all circumstances,

provocations, and aversive interactions associated with the dog.s aggression need to be avoided.

Many aggressive dogs are anxious or fearful, and punishment of any kind should be avoided.

The author states, .Aversive tools such as electric stimulation (shock), prong, or training (choke)

collars that require pulling and jerking to work, hitting and scolding can increase anxiety and

therefore increase the risk of biting; in addition, they are likely to lead to treatment failure.

Biobehavioral monitoring and electronic control of behavior. (Lindsay, S. (2005). Handbook

of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Vol. 3: Procedures and Protocols, Iowa: Blackwell

Publishing, 557-665).

In his Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Vol. 3: Procedures and

Protocol, in the chapter .Biobehavioral Monitoring and Electronic Control of Behavior,.

Lindsay recounts several studies that show dogs exposed to inescapable shock, increased levels

of shock, and unpredictable shock demonstrated impaired ability to escape (learned helplessness)

(Houser and Pare, 1974; Seligman and Maier, 1967; Seligman et al., 1968). In the section on

.Electronic Containment Systems,. Lindsay states that dogs who are inappropriately exposed to

an invisible fencing system using electric shock collar may subsequently show intense fear and

avoidance of the yard.

Lindsay adds that the first experience of some dogs to being walked on leash by a

stranger is when they experience intense electrical shock by a containment-system salesperson or

installer. As a result, dogs may show generalized anxiety or reactivity when on leash, as well as

wariness or auto-protective behavior toward strangers encountered near the fence boundaries.

The resulting social fear response toward the unfamiliar persons may be highly durable and

resistant to extinction and counter-conditioning efforts. A shock that occurs during play or in

proximity to children can cause a loss of trust and security and may compromise a dog.s ability

to feel safe or to relax when in similar situations (Polsky, 1998; 2000).

These findings seem to correlate with the brain changes seen in the amygdala during the

acquisition of fear, including the duration and increasing intensity of the expression of these

fears (Bolshakov et al., 2002). These correlations suggest that while electronic avoidance

training may be useful in certain situations, such as livestock and predatory problems

(Christiansen, et al, 2001A, 2001B), they may not be the best choice for the average pet owner,

who may be unable to deal with increasing fear responses for the duration of the dog.s life

(Polsky, 1998; 2000).

Summary

In reviewing many research studies, a common thread was repeated: electronic training

devices are aversive. Electronic training devices should not be used as the first level of training,

and when used, should be used only by skilled and experienced handlers. Currently, little

scientific research has been published concerning the practical use of electronic training devices

for companion animals. The research studies that have been included in this paper are a

compilation of those studies currently available. A very important component when discussing

the use of these electronic devices is the human factor involved.reliability when using

aversives may be a focus for a future article, as well as laws governing the use of electronic,

citronella or bark-activated collars, and ultrasonic devices.

There have been hundreds of studies concerning the effects of electronic

stimulation/shock in multiple settings, including clinical use. To date, electronic stimulation has

become the most studied form of aversive stimulus that dog trainers use, though most studies

involving dogs have discernable methodological weaknesses. Studies show that when used

correctly by a skilled trainer, no physical injury should occur. As with most tools, the handler.s

ability can help determine the effect of the aversive; however, each dog is an individual and the

response to aversive stimuli will be different for each dog. A low-level electrical stimulus for one

dog can be entirely different for another. It may be difficult for a novice to determine exactly

what effect the collar is having on a dog if they are not aware of the subtleties of canine

communication signals.

However, can the majority of dog owners be counted on to deliver shocks reliably?

Studies, such as those by Schalke, et.al., seem to illustrate the possible outcome of poor timing

and/or excessive use. In the conclusion of his chapter .Biobehavioral Monitoring and Electronic

Control of Behavior,. Lindsay.s opinion is that average dog owners typically lack the skill and

knowledge to use e-collars effectively and safely on their dogs, and, whenever possible, they

should be encouraged to receive hands-on instruction from skilled trainers and other experienced

professionals (p.626).

He goes on to state:

.The humane use of electronic training equipment depends on an educated end-user;

oddly enough, though, few manufacturers have come to grips with their responsibility in

this regard, and, along with pet supply retailers, appear content with the status quo and

short-term profits to a relatively ignorant dog-owning public.a state of affairs that is

difficult to fathom when one considers the high stakes. Eventually, this strategy may

prove foolhardy, perhaps leading concerned individuals and organizations critical of such

devices to seek legislative action to restrict their sale and use by the public altogether..

(Lindsay p.627)

APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF ELECTRICAL TERMS

Ampere:

1. A measure of electrical current flow.

2. A measure of how much electricity is moving through a conductor.

3. The unit of measurement of electric current. It is proportional to the quantity of

electrons flowing through a conductor past a given point in one second. It is analogous to

cubic feet of water flowing per second.

4. The unit of measurement used to determine the quantity of electricity flowing through

a circuit. One ampere flows through a one ohm resistance when a potential one volt is

applied.

5. One ampere is the current flowing through one ohm of resistance at one volt potential.

Analogous to gallons of water flowing past a given point.

mA:

1. Milliampere: one thousandth of an ampere.

1. Milliamps, 1000 MA = one amp.

Impedance: Impedance is a measure of how hard a signal has to work to get through a cable,

speaker, or piece of equipment. Always rated in ohms, the higher the impedance, the harder for

the signal to get through a material.s opposition to the flow of electric current; measured in

ohms.

Ohm:

1. The amount of resistance overcome by one volt in causing one ampere to flow. The

ohm measures resistance to current flow in electrical circuits.

2. A measure of how much something resists (impedes) the flow of electricity. Larger

numbers mean more resistance.

3. A unit of electrical resistance equal to that of a conductor in which a current of one

ampere is produced by a potential of one volt across its terminals.

4. One ohm is the value of resistance through which a potential difference of one volt will

maintain a current of one ampere.

5. Unit of electrical resistance used to measure a material.s resistance to the flow of

electric current.

APPENDIX B: WEB RESOURCES

The following Web sites have articles on the use of electronic training devices:

Smith, C. (2006). What do you say when your clients want electronic containment systems.

Animal Behavior Consulting: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 27-32. www.iaabc.org.

Shock collars: The shocking truth. Association of Pet Behavior Counsellors, www.apbc.org.uk.

The Delta Society, www.deltasociety.org, Section 3.10, Remote Training Collar.

and Internet resources (Appendix B).

This is the full study that I referred to in my other post in this thread. While it is agreed that proper use is not harmful to the dog by a skilled trainer. I will once again state how can that trainer be confident that the average dog owner will go and use it properly. Even in a class with a so called skilled trainer the misuse of this tool by one of their clients was not picked up. While a few of you on this forum may have used an e collar correctly I feel it is highly irasponable to give it such wide a claim to the average dog owner.

Lou I am not the one standing around with the nodding heads and I have plenty to say. Sarcasim is the lowest form of wit. Which you seem to use plenty of it. If I have not responded to anything it is because I would be spending my time trying to debate with a brick wall. If an open mind has led you to e collars. Then are you saying the way you used other methods did not work. So are you claiming they don't work? or perhaps is it that you did not have a full understanding of how to apply them.

Edited August 20, 2007 by pinnacle dts

[Cosmolo]

I read through most of your post pdts and while i think there were some good points, it just poses more questions. There is no information on the dogs in question that were used, their prior learning and experience etc.

It also interests me that the concept of loading was not mentioned, especially when it was being suggested that some behaviour problems increase with the use of punishment? Sounds like loading to me, inneffective corrections being given which do serve to load the dog and make the problem worse.

There is no specific information on levels the collars were used at, what collars were used and the timing of the handler is not known. I have used an e collar on one of my own dogs- an extremely fearful female- and the clarity of the e collar actually helped in building her confidence as well as us allowing her off lead which in turn built her confidence again. She certainly does not walk down the street exhibiting some of the behaviours mentioned in this study- i would question whether it was the e collar itself that caused these problems, sounds more likely that the dog has received poorly timed, and therefore bond diminishing corrections (e collar or otherwise) and is now experiencing learned helplessness.

I would love to see comparison of stress levels to other training equipment- headcollars in particular- the change in stress levels from when the equipment is fitted, when it is being actioned, and after the dog has learnt the exercise- what the stess level is then. I believe there is stress in any learning, regardless of method- recovery time and stress oce dog clearly understands exercise is very important to me.

I think what makes this subject so difficult is that many people who have used an e collar have seen very good results. So the study is viewed with some skepticism or at least poses many more questions that can never be answered. E collars are not for everyone and my clients never handle the remote until i am convinced that the dog understands the concepts AND the handler has excellent timing. I agree that they are not for the novice handler. But then neither is other types of equipment.

[daccies]

Thanks Pinnacle for the report - I am sure there are other reports that will be posted in argument, but at the end of the day aren't most dolers "just household pet owners"?

These correlations suggest that while electronic avoidance

training may be useful in certain situations, such as livestock and predatory problems

(Christiansen, et al, 2001A, 2001B), they may not be the best choice for the average pet owner,

who may be unable to deal with increasing fear responses for the duration of the dog.s life

And with all due respect to Lou most of us don't have police dogs to train. Therefore IMO these collars could perhaps be used by experienced trainers in exceptional circumstances but not by the majority of us.

..... and please don't all jump down my throat for expressing my thoughts on an interesting topic which hasn't been the most pleasant to read.

All I want to know is the best and most successful way of training fear aggresive dogs, which I believe is how the topic started. All of you giving your opinions and arguments have helped me form my opinions, but I do believe has been full of personal attacks rather than sticking to the issue of electric vs. treat training.

[daccies]

E collars are not for everyone and my clients never handle the remote until i am convinced that the dog understands the concepts AND the handler has excellent timing. I agree that they are not for the novice handler. But then neither is other types of equipment

And perhaps that is the crux of the matter Cosmo - understanding if the owner is competantly able to use the Ecollar in the correct manner thus perhaps making it a benefit rather than saddling the dog with all sort of other undesirable behaviour.

[Cosmolo]

I agree daccies, but that principle is far from exclusive to e collars. I see headcollars cause many problems as well and yet, they don't appear to come under the same scrutiny as an e collar.

[MonElite]

I have also read through most of the studies and first thing I have found was this

The research found that the dogs. heart rate increased when a tone was followed by an electric

shock of a medium level. The electric shocking device used was a high-voltage system, onesecond

shock, different for each dog according to the dog.s reaction at each interval. The level of

shock used was intense enough to cause the dog to fully flex his leg off the table.

So to me this is a waaaay to high stim that was used, hence yes study showed what it showed. No surprises there.

But this isnt how those advocating the collars use them.

Some of the studies done there were on containment system.

It wasnt noted really that the outputs of them is A LOT higher than those of remote trainers

I did like this bit.

To date, electronic stimulation has

become the most studied form of aversive stimulus that dog trainers use, though most studies

involving dogs have discernable methodological weaknesses. Studies show that when used

correctly by a skilled trainer, no physical injury should occur. As with most tools, the handler.s

ability can help determine the effect of the aversive;

Totally agree with whats in bold.

I find it surprising that ecollars were the tool that was studied heaps, yet we are unable to find heaps of studies on it to read.

[MonElite]

I just remembered. APDT are having a conference in the begining of September in Sydney.

I know that one of the subject that will be discussed is the use of ecollars and weather they have a place in the community.

Anyone attending to give an update on what was said?

Anyone going to represent different views on the issue?

[poodlefan]

I just remembered. APDT are having a conference in the begining of September in Sydney.

I know that one of the subject that will be discussed is the use of ecollars and weather they have a place in the community.

Anyone attending to give an update on what was said?

Anyone going to represent different views on the issue?

Myzska I will be there. I have not seen any reference to a discussion on E-collars in the program (linky is here but given that many APDT members are Delta trained, I'd regard the outcome of any such discussion as fairly predictable.

Why must there be only one right and humane way to achieve an outcome for a dog? I don't use e-collars but I can see that they have their uses. I don't use or like halti's but I can see that they have their uses. Both can be abused. One has the reputation as a benign and positve tool and the other as something akin to a tool of the spanish inquistion. However, your average pet owner is far more likely to own and misuse a halti. What's going to cause the greater damage to Australia's dogs?

Any training tool including a flat collar can be abused by the ignorant or cruel. The right tool is one that the handler can be taught to use correctly and humanely - and that's going to vary.

I feel that the purely positive vs some use of aversives training philosophy underlies this debate. Once again, does there only have to be one right and humane way to train a dog?

For any piece of scientific research, there will be another contrdicting and refuting it... I prefer to experience and judge the use of any training tool by watching the reaction of the dog in front of me.

Edited August 21, 2007 by poodlefan

[MonElite]

Poodlefan, as always love your work and totally agree with you.

I think you should be a spokesperson at that conference. :D

PF - from the linky you provided

Panel Discussion: Dr. Ian Dunbar , Kelly Gorman, Nicole Wilde, Dr. Judith Randall, Dr. Debbie Calnon

A discussion on remote punishers including citronella, ultrasonic and electric collars. Increased availability of these devices means trainers must keep up to date with research on behavioural issues resulting from their use. Are there ever sound reasons for using remote punishers? If so, how and by whom? Are there significant differences in the stress reactions between different devices? What is the law in relation to their sale and use?

Edited August 21, 2007 by myszka

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: If anyone wants to know anything about the use of e collars, APDT would not be the place to go...

I would bet anything that it will be a one sided extremely slanted view..

NDTF should run a info day...

[poodlefan]

K9: If anyone wants to know anything about the use of e collars, APDT would not be the place to go...

I would bet anything that it will be a one sided extremely slanted view..

NDTF should run a info day...

I know for a fact that Ian Dunbar believes that e-collars have their uses but from memory I think he may see them as purely aversive tools used to treat highly undesireable self rewarding behaviours like stock chasing.

Myzska I've delivered myself a mental headslap!!

Should be a very very interesting session. :D

[MonElite]

Should be a very very interesting session. :D

Will you be participating if given a chance PF?

[poodlesplus]

I did not carry in because there was no science or believable content in what was said mainly by Lou and Erny. There was so much crap i didn't know where to start. I have Lou's statement "forget Ohms law" enlarged ready to have a giggle at at work. It is like arguing that the earth is flat.You can't argue with insanity like that. You can just go away and have a laugh. I was a little sad because up to now, I had some respect for Lou.He might not train the way I do, but he does some interesting things. I also thought he told it mostly like it is . Apparently not. Personally i found it unbelievable that adult people want to piss with science so much. Never mind. I didn't take it at all personally. I just took it for what it was a bunch of crap from some very arrogant people who don't have the grace or good manners to admit when they are wrong. I know where not to come for for my dog training help.I wouldn't want to bother with trainers that are so suggestable that they fall for urban legends so quickly and readily. I would want someone a good deal more open minded and intellectually able. Look at my original statement. There was fact and there was opinion.I used the correct language to distingush between the two. I have no problem if bona fide trainers wish to argue about how and why to use a collar. I personally, don't like using e collars a lot. You might, that's your business. I said some statements close to that intent in my original statement. I want to know why that appears to be be such a threat to you? Why should you spend so much time denigrating those who don't? Aren't you that sure of yourself? You sure as hell act like it.

If i made racist comments about forum participants would that be OK to?? Why then is my profession something to be laughed at???

What I do have problems with is so called trainers telling porkies about how they work, and then carrying it on. Just get it right. Now I will go away again,, and no doubt, you will have another good little bitch session, tell yourselves how good you are , and i don't know what. I do have this question. I am on holiday at the moment,writing some papers and i have trouble keeping up with the stuff you people write. Don't you have jobs or isn't the dog training going so hot?

[Rom]

Thanks for the article Pinnacle, I've copied it to read in a more comfortable environment...hate sitting at the computer.

While it is agreed that proper use is not harmful to the dog by a skilled trainer. I will once again state how can that trainer be confident that the average dog owner will go and use it properly. Even in a class with a so called skilled trainer the misuse of this tool by one of their clients was not picked up. While a few of you on this forum may have used an e collar correctly I feel it is highly irasponable to give it such wide a claim to the average dog owner.

The sad thing is, you could remove the word e-collar from this para and put in the name of any other training tool and the gist of the para would still ring true.

I have been talking to a lady who has a 5yo desexed male dally. The first time she asked for help at the club I've been attending (for observation/study purposes) she had him on a halti. He presented with facial abrasions. Even though at one point he was standing by her side doing absolutely nothing wrong this dog was still experiencing an adversive that he couldn't turn off evidenced by the fact that he kept furiously rubbing his face on her leg. In turn to which, she was reprimanding him and putting additional pressure on the halti to get him to stop rubbing.

The halti was removed, the dog put on a check chain and the lady was shown some basic check chain work in which the dog was responding well to the sound of the check chain alone. His bottom jaw relaxed and he started wagging his tail and walking with a spring in his step. The lady decided not to persist with the check chain work but to go back to the halti at the urging of RSPCA supporters.

On Saturday just gone, she was at a function that I was at. I asked after her dog and she said that after his morning walk that morning his face was bleeding. This dog also has cruciate ligament problems and ordinarily sits very slowly, however now he is collapsing in the back end at the slightest pressure on the lead. His back is apparently out.

She went back to the club on Monday and had made the decision that maybe the check chain was going to be better for her dog after all.

In your words..."highly irresponsible to give it such a wide acclaim to the average dog owner". Yet haltis are freely available to all comers.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Rom

[Erny]

All I want to know is the best and most successful way of training fear aggresive dogs, which I believe is how the topic started. All of you giving your opinions and arguments have helped me form my opinions, but I do believe has been full of personal attacks rather than sticking to the issue of electric vs. treat training.

Hi Daccies. I think this topic started because the OP wanted to hear of success stories from others who have or had worked with fear aggressive dogs. There are a variety of ways (the e-collar being one of them) but as to which way is right completely depends on the dog and the owner. Each is taken on its own merits and a plan devised and tailored to suit. Hence I doubt you'll find here any talk of exactly what to do and in what steps here, if that's what you might be looking for. Especially for behavioural issues relating to aggression, it is always recommended that you engage a behaviourist to see and assess your dog and work directly with you.

Is that where you are at? IE Does your own dog have fear aggression issues? If you let us know where you are located we might be able to help more by recommending someone to you.

[haven]

I did not carry in because there was no science or believable content in what was said mainly by Lou and Erny. There was so much crap i didn't know where to start. I have Lou's statement "forget Ohms law" enlarged ready to have a giggle at at work. It is like arguing that the earth is flat.You can't argue with insanity like that. You can just go away and have a laugh. I was a little sad because up to now, I had some respect for Lou.He might not train the way I do, but he does some interesting things. I also thought he told it mostly like it is . Apparently not. Personally i found it unbelievable that adult people want to piss with science so much. Never mind. I didn't take it at all personally. I just took it for what it was a bunch of crap from some very arrogant people who don't have the grace or good manners to admit when they are wrong. I know where not to come for for my dog training help.I wouldn't want to bother with trainers that are so suggestable that they fall for urban legends so quickly and readily. I would want someone a good deal more open minded and intellectually able. Look at my original statement. There was fact and there was opinion.I used the correct language to distingush between the two. I have no problem if bona fide trainers wish to argue about how and why to use a collar. I personally, don't like using e collars a lot. You might, that's your business. I said some statements close to that intent in my original statement. I want to know why that appears to be be such a threat to you? Why should you spend so much time denigrating those who don't? Aren't you that sure of yourself? You sure as hell act like it.

If i made racist comments about forum participants would that be OK to?? Why then is my profession something to be laughed at???

What I do have problems with is so called trainers telling porkies about how they work, and then carrying it on. Just get it right. Now I will go away again,, and no doubt, you will have another good little bitch session, tell yourselves how good you are , and i don't know what. I do have this question. I am on holiday at the moment,writing some papers and i have trouble keeping up with the stuff you people write. Don't you have jobs or isn't the dog training going so hot?

I just don't get how you can continue to make posts like this when you've started another thread in order to cry about how badly you have been treated and how everyone has personally attacked you (which is completely untrue) and yet your own posts are simply derisive hostility rife with completely unwarranted personal attacks. I was going to highlight the specific statements with nasty comments but on closer inspection I'd be highlighting the whole thing!

Noone has personally attacked you, noone has knocked your credentials or laughed at your profession. If you don't like it here, leave. Or do what I am doing and that is reporting you and then putting you on ignore :D

[poodlefan]

Should be a very very interesting session. :D

Will you be participating if given a chance PF?

Generally, audience participation is in the form of questions for the panel to discuss. I'm sure I'll end up asking one.

[Lou Castle]

Electronic Training Devices: A Review of Current Literature

Thanks for posting this pinnacle. Before we get into it can you tell us a little bit about your personal experience with Ecollars? Have you ever used an Ecollar? Ever used one with modern methods. EVER SEEN ONE! Ever felt the stim from one?

In the past, I've asked a few questions that you seem to be ducking. Here they are again. Earlier you claimed that I was promoting my self and I asked, "Exactly what benefit do you think might come to me?"

Earlier you wrote I would just like to say that this is why a lot of trainers will not recommend tools that can be misused in the first place.

And I asked,

Can you please name a tool that can't be "misused?" I can't think of a single one.

Could you answer these questions please?

And now to discuss your post. WARNING: My response is even longer than the post that pinnacle sent in. If you don't want to read through all of it just read my response to one study, the Schilder one. I'll highlight it in red to make it easier for you to find.

What follows is about a 7,500 word article that has no paragraph formatting or separation between studies or thoughts, making it very difficult to read. pinnacle could have supplied it with formatting but choose not to for reasons of her own. I think she did it so as to make it as difficult as possible for any response.

Also she failed to supply a link for it. We have no way of knowing if she's quoted it accurately, completely or if she's chosen to change any wording. This is often typical of those who oppose Ecollars. Often there is information omitted that is quite favorable to the use of Ecollars, but they don't want us to see it, so they provide information in this manner.

I'll use blue lettering when I quote this REVIEW. And BTW I hope you noticed that this is NOT a new study. Rather it's a REVIEW of Current Literature. This is one thing that the anti-Ecollar folks do. They don't have any new studies to show so they do a "review" of old studies. Then they quote from it as if it was something new. Then they'll quote each other quoting the review which quotes the old studies. Those who don't follow this closely think that there's an avalanche of new information when, in fact there's NOTHING new. But let's begin.

The use of electronic devices to train animals is a controversial issue that elicits strong emotions.

Not among those of us who actually use the tool. Controversy is only with those who have little or no experience with the tool.

This literature review summarizes currently available scientific research concerning

As I said, there's nothing new here.

Every effort was made to give a synopsis of the research without personal opinion or conjecture.

I wonder why this statement was made? The reason is that the people who compiled this information are all anti-Ecollar!. And so they want to let us know that they've tried to be as fair as possible. Of course any reasonable person knows that this is impossible. If one has an agenda and a bias it's impossible to eliminate it from any endeavor, try as we might.

In Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. 3 (2005), Lindsay explains in detail the electrical engineering that goes into these collars (pp. 570-573). There is no evidence of standardization for electronic training devices, and the quality varies from one manufacturer to the next.

This is true and it's the reason that I only recommend two brands, Dogtra and Tri-Tronics. Both brands are of the highest quality.

Some manufacturers have developed collars that have a wide range of settings and the ability to administer various levels of electricity.

I recommend that if you want to follow my protocols that the Ecollar have at least 15 distinct levels of stim. Even better is one that offers 127 levels.

The length of coat, hydration of the dog, how the dog holds his head, and amount of dirt and debris on the dog are also factors in the amount of electronic stimulation/shock the dog receives.

None of this matters to the Ecollar user. It's just an attempt to make the beginner think that finding the dog's working level of stim (the level where he first feels it) is quite difficult. In reality it's quite simple. One starts with the Ecollar set at zero, and then slowly turns it up, testing each level until the dog shows some sign that he feels it. This is most commonly a "sit and scratch" as if the dog was bitten by a single flea. Other common signs are an ear flick, a blink, a furrowing of the brow, a quick look at the ground or at his neck. Sometimes seen is a shaking of the head, the same sort of thing as when a dog is shaking off water. The user doesn't have to determine the coat length, the hydration of the dog, how he's holding his head, or the amount of dirt on the dog.

Other factors that affect the degree of stimulation include the size and type of electrodes (as noted above), distance between electrodes, voltage and amperage levels, as well as the impedance of the tissue at the sites of contact with the electrodes.

This is just more of the same. The user doesn't have to take any of this into account. He just turns up the stim, testing each level until the dog shows that he's feeling it.

Impedance is defined as how much resistance the electricity encounters to complete a circuit, or electric charge (http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com, accessed 28 July, 2006). The greater the tissue impedance, the less electrical conductivity is seen; conversely, less tissue impedance results in greater electrical conductivity. Tissue impedance is affected not only by the location of the electrodes, but by the amount of connective tissues and fat deposits, as well (Ahn, Wu, Badger,

Just more of the same.

The goal of this study was to establish parameters for determining stress elicited by different stimuli in dogs. Guidelines for physiological levels indicating stress were determined from previous studies, one of which showed that when a dog was exposed to noise, heart rate and cortisol levels increased at 30 seconds and returned to normal at 4 minutes (Engeland, 1990).

The dogs in the Beerda study were exposed to a loud noise, electric shock (estimated to be medium level electrical stimulation, or MLES),

Note that this test did NOT measure low level stim. I find it interesting that NOT ONE TEST done by the anti's has ever used low level stim.

a bag dropped from the ceiling, physical restraint, and an umbrella opening. Body posture, saliva cortisol levels, heart rate, and behavior responses were analyzed.

Some of these measures are actually worthwhile. But some are completely subjective. Since these folks are all anti-Ecollar measurements of body posture and behavior responses can easily be skewed by the filter of perception.

The results of this study showed that the greatest increase in cortisol levels occurred when dogs were exposed to loud noise, a bag dropped from the ceiling, and electric shock.

And yet we don't see people getting hysterical if a dog is subjected to a loud noise or a bag dropped near him. But use an Ecollar and people rise up!

The time necessary to return to the baseline heart rate was longer when the dogs were exposed to the loud noise and the bag.

WHAT! The dogs were more frightened by the loud noise and the bag dropping than a MEDIUM level stim? Imagine how little they'd be bothered by a low level stim!

This study reported behavioral responses of very low body posture to the dropped bags, loud sounds, and shock, while the restraint and umbrella responses included restlessness, defined as high levels of body shaking and verbal behaviors (social communication).

Measurement of these responses are completely subjective and are easily influenced, even on an subconscious level by a prior bias or agenda.

This study is a good example of signs of stress, positive as well as negative associations to humans, and the increase of stress when electric shock is used in unpredictable situations.

This study is a HORRIBLE example of signs of stress. Much of the information was gathered in a completely subjective manner. And, most importantly this was completely unnecessary. They had perfectly good measures of stress, heart rate and cortisol level. For reasons known only to the researchers (I think they knew what the outcome of a purely scientific measure would be) they decided to include subjective measurements into the study, allowing them to color it as they pleased.

Note: We personally believe that while this study was a good example of using cortisol to measure stress

It's interesting to note that they FAILED to mention other reasons that cortisol may be present in a dog. They only associated it with stress. There are other reasons as well including health, presence of infection and how long it's been since the dog has eaten.

The effects of petting on classically conditioned emotional response (Lynch, J.J. & McCarthy, J.F. (1996). Behavior Research and Therapy, 5(1), 55-62). In this study, the authors observed the physiological effects of human contact on the dog. The research found that the dogs. heart rate increased when a tone was followed by an electric shock of a medium level. The electric shocking device used was a high-voltage system, one second shock, different for each dog according to the dog.s reaction at each interval. The level of shock used was intense enough to cause the dog to fully flex his leg off the table.

Why do you suppose that these folks used HIGH level shock? Why is it that they didn't use low level stim? Quite simple. It wouldn't have shown the results that they were after.

Is anyone else old enough to remember the studies of saccharin done in (I think) the 1960's? It showed that saccharin caused cancer in laboratory rats and it was widely spread by the folks who make sugar. Much later it was revealed that you'd have to ingest 600 pounds of saccharin a day in order to induce cancer.

Similarly studies that use high level stim or even medium level stim mean nothing to those of us who use low level stim.

The rest of this study shows that the presence of humans lowers the dog's heart rate but that after 2-3 days it had no effect. That's all that study showed.

Predicting canine cortisol response from human affiliative and punitive behaviors (Jones, A.C. & Josephs, R.A. Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine 2005 . Papers Presented at the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press:194-197.)

The results of this research showed that play and petting decreased cortisol levels, while punitive behavior (yelling and physical non-play) on the owners. part increased cortisol levels.

I see no connection to the study of Ecollars here.

Clinical Signs caused by the use of electronic training collars on dogs (Canis familiaris) in everyday life situations. (Schalke E, Stichnoth J, & Jones-Baade R. Journal of Applied Animal Behavior Science, doi:10.1016/j.japplanim.2006.11.002

The purpose of this study was to determine whether any stress is caused by the use of electric shock collars or not, and in this way contribute to their evaluation with respect to animal welfare.

The collars were the Teletakt micro 3000 (ohm levels of 500 to 2.2 kohm).

This is an obsolete model of Ecollar that is famous the world over for delivering the highest levels of stim of any Ecollar. Notice that these researches LIKE ALL OTHERS totally overlooked testing the results of low level stim. Hmmm, why could that have occurred?

Group A (Aversive) was trained to avoid prey by receiving a shock at the precise moment they touched the dummy rabbit, forming an association between touching the prey and shock.

Group H (Here) received additional training to come on command, and were then tested in a situation where they were asked to avoid prey with a .here. command. If they did not respond to the .here. cue, they received a shock.

Group R (Random) was given a random electric shock prior to attention toward prey, while hunting, or after the hunting sequence when the prey had been removed.

This work is usually done at the highest level that an Ecollar affords. We're talking VERY HIGH LEVEL STIM here folks.

Each dog was allowed a maximum of only one shock per day

Isn't this nice of the researchers? They've being soooooo nice to the dog by only shocking them once a day. In reality this makes it very difficult, if not impossible for the dogs to know that they've made the correct association that's desired in the training. They only know that when they come into the environment where this test is being conducted, they're going to be shocked and AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL. They have no idea to what or why this will occur.

OF COURSE they're going to be highly stressed. This was purposefully done by the testers knowing that the dogs would not have known what started and what stopped the shock.

The researchers state, .This study indicates that the general use of electronic shock collars is not consistent with animal welfare. It has to be assumed that pet owners do not have the sufficient knowledge about training and skill to avoid the risk that dogs will show severe and persistent stress symptoms.. They further conclude, .The results of this study suggest that poor timing in application of high 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, and then the use of these devices should only be allowed in strictly specified situations.

Does anyone really think that these folks needed to go to all this trouble to come to this determination? It's obvious that they had an agenda and a bias before they even started. It's easy to make a test go a certain way if you want to.

In this case they used extremely high levels of stim and didn't allow the dogs to learn what was causing the stim by only allowing them one stim per day.

Fear conditioning occludes LTP-induced presynaptic enhancement of synaptic transmission in the cortical pathway to the lateral amygdala (Tsevtkov, E., Carlezon, W., Benes, F., Kandel, E., & Bolshakov, V. (2002) Neuron, 34(2), 289-300).

This study attempted to prove a longstanding theory that learning takes place and memories are formed when the same message travels repeatedly between specific cells in the brain. During the study, researchers introduced rats to a sound that was accompanied by an electric shock to the foot. The shock, while of a low intensity, did cause the rats to be visibly startled.

Thos of us who actually use Ecollars know that if a stim is of such a level that it causes the animal to be "visibly startled, it's NOT of "a low intensity" as these folks pretend. The measurement is NOT one of how much voltage is applied it's ONLY based on how the animal responds to it.

Biobehavioral monitoring and electronic control of behavior (Lindsay, S. (2005). Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. 3. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 557-665.)

In his recent book, Steven Lindsay cites many research studies concerning electronic training devices.

NO WHERE in this citation does Lindsay discuss using low levels of stim. Remember the saccharin story?

In the chapter,.Biobehavioral Monitoring and Electronic Control of Behavior,. he states that electric shock at high levels can cause distress and emotional harm to dogs (p. 576).

Of course it can. Notice that he makes NO COMMENT about the effects of low level stim. That's because it doesn't cause either distress or emotional harm to dogs. Notice that he later discusses "medium level stim" but he does not make this same comment about it.

With all the factors and electrical contingencies, the best way to understand the level of electrical stimulation is to feel it. Contact with electricity causes the body to respond as if injured (at low levels there is no physical damage ). the brain perceives a threat to survival that causes neurological, psychological (fear of pain), and physiological responses (heart rate and cortisol levels increase).

Please read this again. at low levels there is no physical damage! As far as the rest of his paragraph, the "threat to survival that causes neurological, psychological (fear of pain), and physiological responses (heart rate and cortisol levels increase)." DOES NOT occur when the tool is used with my protocols at low levels of stim. What he describes occurs with random stims, (that's what he's doing) and OF COURSE this is the result. When the Ecollar is used in actually training the dogs quickly learn what makes the stim start and what makes it stop. When they learn this there's nothing of what he describes.

And when low levels of stim are used there is not "fear of pain" as he mentions occurs with high levels of stim.

High-level electric shock (HLES) causes a neurological response and a perception of pain, and activates muscular and skin-burning sensations even if there is no physically burned flesh and although no physical damage has actually occurred. The study specifically stated that the sensation of burning was perceived even when there was no actual physical injury (Sang et.al., 2003).

Medium-level electric shock (MLES) produces sharp pricking, jabbing sensations.

Low-level electric shock (LLES) causes tapping, tickling, and/or tingling sensations.

Note again what low level stim causes tapping, tickling and/or tickling.

It is difficult, at best, for anyone to determine the full psychological effect of these devices or training methods until we can agree on exactly what constitutes a stress signal in a domestic dog. Not only do none of the researchers agree on what it is, but it varies from dog to dog.

So if this is the case, how can all these researchers make such definitive statements about the effects of Ecollars on dogs? The obvious answer is that they slant the test any way that they want, any way that agrees with their bias.

SCHILDER STUDY

Training dogs with the help of the shock collar: Short and long term behavioral effects. (Schilder, M. & van der Borga, J. (2004). Applied Animal Behavior Science, 85, 319-334). The goal of this study was to determine the behavioral changes in dogs during training using electronic training collars.

Of all the tests cited in this gathering this test is the biggest joke of them all. My critique to this study runs to six pages. I'll cut it down for this post.

Thirty-two dogs were divided into two groups, each receiving both general obedience and protection training. One group was trained with shock collars and the other group without shock collars. The dogs trained with the shock collars displayed signs of stress: lowering of body posture, high-pitched yelps, barks and squeals, avoidance, redirected aggression, and tongue flicking. It was also noted by the authors that, even during play and relaxed walking, the group of dogs trained with shock collars continued to show signs of stress while in the company of their handler.

The authors concluded that shock-collar training is stressful; receiving shocks is a painful experience to dogs; and the shock group of dogs evidently learned that the presence of their owner (or his commands) announced the reception of shocks, even outside of the normal training context. They suggest that the welfare of these shocked dogs is at stake, at least in the presence of their owners.

This study has come under considerable fire because the experience of the handlers and dogs is not clear, and the level of shock is not stated.

This study was conducted on the Netherlands. This part of the world is famous for using the highest levels of stim available on any Ecollar.

The full version of the study states

We were interested especially in finding occurrences of pain, fear, avoidance, pain-induced aggression and submission.

Ya think there's an agenda here? The stated purpose was to find "pain, fear, avoidance, pain-induced aggression and submission." The language they use is very important. They didn't go looking for "signs of" these things. They didn't go looking to see if such things existed, they had predetermined that they do and then they structured their study to find it. This is not The way that scientific studies are supposed to be conducted. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, writing as Sherlock Holmes.

The full version of the study states

Although shocks may be painful, this does not imply that there is physical damage. A recent report on possible damage by the use of shock collars provides no evidence for physical damage and states that this is even unlikely … We have not proved that the long-term welfare of the shocked dogs is hampered … (Emphasis added)

Perhaps the most telling criticism of this study is that they based their findings, "that Ecollars cause stress" on their observations of the dogs. The very same Steven Lindsay that has been quoted in this Review has some interesting things to say about this study. He writes

The authors made no attempt to blind themselves to the experimental and control groups. … they were subjectively interpreting behavior. And they knew which dogs were being subjected to which training protocol, when they were doing the interpretation. (Emphasis added)

Lindsay continues,

The social behaviors that the authors used to judge that the dogs were under stress are ambiguous, and are displayed by dogs in a variety of situations, only some of which involve high levels of stress. There is zero scientific evidence that these indicators mean what the authors claim they mean. … The main differences observed between dogs receiving ES (electrical stim) and those receiving other forms of correction included an altered ear posture detected during obedience work and free walking, tongue flicking (appeasement licking) during protection work, and submissive pawing actions during obedience work. (Emphasis added)

These observations can be the result of many other things besides "fear" which is what the "observers" noted. Yet they only reported that one and never remarked that any other stimuli could be responsible. The "altered ear posture" is completely subjective and since these people were anti-Ecollar they could have easily interpreted the ear carriage any way that they wanted to. The same criticism apply to tongue flicking and pawing actions.

He continues,

The notion that Dutch working dogs might have become fearful of their handlers as a result of shocks received in training is reported as an obvious fact that is never actually tested, leaving it to the reader to accept the speculation "as fact" or not. In practice, dogs do not appear to link ES with the handler, especially persons with whom the dog is closely attached and familiar. (Emphasis added)

And

Interestingly, the IPO system has devised a good behavior test for detecting mishandling and abuse. Surely, if an IPO dog had developed a fear or aversion towards its handler as the result of electrical training, the following IPO Watchdog Test [WH (Wachhunde Certificate)] requirement would likely reveal it, causing a great many dogs to fail if they were treated as badly as alleged by the present report

The system of competition that these dogs are being trained for contains within it a measurement of the level of fear that these dogs might have. Yet this study doesn't even make a mention of it. Of course they don't, it would conflict with their findings. Not only did they construct a study that would allow them to come to their predetermined conclusion, but they purposefully ignored evidence that exists that directly conflicts with that conclusion!

Here's something that I find quite interesting about this study. They go into great detail about the equipment that they used. We know the various breeds of dogs used. We know their sexes and ages.

We know how many wore Ecollars and how many did not. We know the brand of camera used to film the study; the model number and size of film it used. We even know that it had a 40X optical zoom!

We know the sampling method they used, the number of training session they observed and the number of sequences they filmed. We know the OB commands that were used during the "walking" phase of the study and what "protection" movements were involved.

We know how the data was analyzed; we know how each ear and tail position was scored and we know how the data from the two samples was compared.

But nowhere does it state what brand or model of Ecollar was used! I find this omission startling! That is until I realized the lie that is told in the study, that "in general a current of a few thousand volts is used." I'm fairly confident that these folks know that when this lie was told about Innotek Ecollars in Australia by the RSPCA that it cost them tens of thousands of dollars when they were sued for making that statement. In truth Ecollars put out 3-200 volts when they're being used. The statements regarding "a few thousand volts" would have these people being sued if they had mentioned the name of the Ecollar that was used. While it's certainly a more powerful unit than most, it's still nowhere near "several thousand volts." By not naming the brand of Ecollar used, they escape a lawsuit for libel. A clever bunch of liars they are, but they are liars nonetheless.

Here's some more from Lindsay,

If the electrical and physical stimulation were truly traumatic and stressful, one would expect that the traumatized dog might be apt to flee at the first instant it got a chance. Further, one would expect that its willingness to bite and hold the sleeve ought to decrease in proportion to the amount of fear and pain it experienced (e.g., causing the dog to come off the sleeve too early or not to bite as hard) or that the dog might even show signs of avoidance and fear toward the agitator. However, no such loss of drive or performance is reported. In fact, Dutch dogs are renowned for their hardness, work enthusiasm, and acrobatic attacks - attributes that are opposite to what one would expect from training that was overly stressful. With increased biological stress, as in sickness, one would expect to observe a drive-reducing effect on aggression and a loss of voluntary initiative, whereas increased fear should tend to suppress behavior rather than enhance it. The absence of reduced drive or behavioral suppression with respect to critical activities associated with shock (e.g. bit work) makes one skeptical about the lasting adverse effects the authors claim to document. Although they offer no substantive evidence of trauma or harm to dogs, the provide loads of speculation, anecdotes, insinuations of gender and educational inadequacies, and derogatory comments regarding the motivation and competence of IPO trainers in its place. (Emphasis added)

This post is longer than most people, even those with an interest in this topic will read. I'll not continue to discuss the rest of the articles unless someone has specific questions about one of them.

Suffice it to say that they address the modern use of Ecollars with low level stim EVEN LESS than the articles that have come before it. Which is to say, "not at all."

pinnacle wrote: This is the full study that I referred to in my other post in this thread.

As I pointed out at the top of my post, this is NOT a "study." Rather it's quite clear that as it's name says, it's A Review of Current Literature.

Those two things are significantly different. Pinnacle wants you to believe that this is some new information. It's not. One cited study is 50 years old!

pinnacle wrote: While it is agreed that proper use is not harmful to the dog by a skilled trainer.

EVERY study that was discussed, used high level stim. I don't. And the difference is significant in its effect on the dog. If one reads my articles and follows them one will get excellent results as many have. I can provide many references for people who have had no experience with Ecollars, who have used my articles and are perfectly happy with their results.

pinnacle wrote: I will once again state how can that trainer be confident that the average dog owner will go and use it properly. Even in a class with a so called skilled trainer the misuse of this tool by one of their clients was not picked up.

As I so clearly demonstrated, the same thing can occur with any tool. You can't guarantee that every person in a clicker class will use it properly.

pinnacle wrote: While a few of you on this forum may have used an e collar correctly I feel it is highly irasponable to give it such wide a claim to the average dog owner.

Thanks for your input. I know better and have demonstrated it many times.

pinnacle wrote: Lou I am not the one standing around with the nodding heads and I have plenty to say.

You have used lots of words, but you've said very little as regards my use of the tool.

pinnacle wrote: Sarcasim is the lowest form of wit.

Actually the pun is considered to be the lowest form of wit.

pinnacle wrote: If I have not responded to anything it is because I would be spending my time trying to debate with a brick wall.

Nonsense. You've not responded to the questions I've asked because you know that to do so will discredit you. I'd be willing to bet on the answers to the questions that I've repeatedly posed to you; the ones that I asked again, at the top of this post.

pinnacle wrote: If an open mind has led you to e collars. Then are you saying the way you used other methods did not work. So are you claiming they don't work? or perhaps is it that you did not have a full understanding of how to apply them.

I know well how to apply them. This is just a weak attempt to try and discredit me, but it won't work. I use them and use them often, WHEN THEY'RE APPROPRIATE. But often they're not. And they give poor results with highly driven dogs.

[Lou Castle]

These correlations suggest that while electronic avoidance training may be useful in certain situations, such as livestock and predatory problems (Christiansen, et al, 2001A, 2001B), they may not be the best choice for the average pet owner, who may be unable to deal with increasing fear responses for the duration of the dog.s life (Emphasis added)

I rarely do "aversion training" which is the ONLY thing that your quotation addresses. It uses very high level of stim to cause pain so that the dog makes an association with the thing that his owner does not want him to do.

THAT'S NOT HOW I USE AN Ecollar for most of the work! People keep making statements such as this one and it's obvious that they don't have a clue as to how I use the tool. Why they do this is beyond comprehension, but they do. Please don't assume that because you don't know how to properly use an Ecollar to train a dog with, that others don't.

most of us don't have police dogs to train. Therefore IMO these collars could perhaps be used by experienced trainers in exceptional circumstances but not by the majority of us.

The fact that I train police dog has nothing to do with anything that's being discussed. I also train my pets and those pets of my clients in the same way. In any case, we know that often the so-called "all positive methods" often fail and when they do, the Ecollar is a good alternative.

All I want to know is the best and most successful way of training fear aggresive dogs

LOL. In the previous paragraph you discuss "the majority of us." And now you inquire about a relatively rare circumstance. The Ecollar used as per my articles, is the best tool to deal with fear aggressive dogs.

All of you giving your opinions and arguments have helped me form my opinions, but I do believe has been full of personal attacks rather than sticking to the issue of electric vs. treat training.

That's usually how the discussions degrade. It's almost always those who oppose the use of the Ecollar that take them down that road.