Citronella Spray Collars

[Aidan]

Actually I have not found any evidence that citronella itself is aversive or that dogs dislike the smell. It is an insect repellent, hence the association, is my theory. One of my dogs actively seeks it out and has eaten citronella candles, and got it all over her playing with a garden lamp. I thought that would be the last time (you know, because citronella is aversive) but it became her favourite toy so I had to lock it away.

I cannot imagine that getting the oil on them would be noticeably more aversive than getting plain water on them and I have no objections to their use when considered as part of a humane barking solution (that would always involve more than just using a collar).

Avoid habituation (refer to Lindsay, link in my previous post) and avoid the dog becoming collar-wise (or not, depends on the problem, I actually want my dogs to become collar wise). Consider exercise, mental stimulation, the true cause of the barking, keeping the dog indoors and, well, there is a whole list of things... I'm glad you asked here and not at the pet shop!

[corvus]

I'm inclined to agree with Aidan on the aversiveness of citronella collars. There was a peculiar presentation at the NDTF conference from someone that had done a pilot study on citronella collars. Her sample size was way small and she failed to get a significant result to indicate that the citronella collar was aversive. Well, she said it was significant, but just barely and with so few dogs and not very convincing results in other measures in the study you have to wonder if one could conclude anything from it at all. If it was so horrible I feel sure she would have got better results than she did, even with the small numbers she had. Isn't Direct Stop citronella? I'm pretty dubious about that one, too.

[Jetty]

No they do not work. Honestly I wouldn't bother. We spent heaps on one to discover he would still bark. Plus the spray would run out alot quicker so if you are not home it will most likely run out at the start of the day.

The shock ones do work better but I don't like using them.

[GardenofEden]

You dont find the static collars hurt the dog??

Hurt? No.

Find it aversive (not a pleasant feeling)? Yes.

And the split second the dog has stopped the bark, no more aversion/sensation.

Unlike citronella, the smell of which remains on its coat and the dog has to endure that even though it is no longer exhibiting unwanted behaviour.

Erny, are static collars and shock collars one and the same? I purchased a shock collar and left it on my dog for 8 hours at a time and after the 4th day, I was horrified to find that the prongs has literally burnt a hole in the dog's neck; I hate to think how bad it would have been if I had left it in place 24/7.

[GardenofEden]

I have tried citronella collars and found them a dismal failure. The dog got used to the spray and it didn't seem to bother her one little bit.

[Erny]

Erny, are static collars and shock collars one and the same? I purchased a shock collar and left it on my dog for 8 hours at a time and after the 4th day, I was horrified to find that the prongs has literally burnt a hole in the dog's neck; I hate to think how bad it would have been if I had left it in place 24/7.

In the context that you mean, yes. But technically, in my mind, no. The electronic collars of yesteryears were what I would call "shock" collars. Designed in a way that the stimulation from them transferred through the dog's neck and which is NOT the way of modern e-collars. I'm not personally familiar with the original older style collars as I wasn't using collars way back then. I would dare say that the stim levels were not as 'sensitive' as they are now either. But from most things technical, we progress and we now have e-collars of vastly different make-up and style than they used to be.

The marks in your dog's skin would NOT have been "burn holes", GoE. That's a 'trick' the RSPCA tried on in a court case against Innotek. RSPCA lost the case and was found to have actually tampered evidence to suit their argument. But that aside ....

What CAN occur is that bacteria can build up under the collar, which of course is required to fit more firmly than the everyday average flat collar so that the contact points touch the skin (otherwise the stimulation won't happen or will occur haphazardly, which is not only NOT going to achieve the consistency your dog requires for easier learning, but is essentially unfair on your dog as well).

Add lack of air flow with the fact that there is some pressure by the two contact points and that's when you can get a result that is akin to or the same as a person who has developed bed sores. This is the reason why the collars must remain on a dog's neck for only a certain (prescribed by manufacturer) period of time in one go.

There are some dogs who can be particularly sensitive and a rash can appear even if the collar is left on only for the prescribed period. Remember that the "prescribed period" is a generality - there will always be exceptions to the rule but for the majority, if the recommendations are observed, there are no issues.

I also recommend people to give their collar a wipe with antiseptic (such as you might use on a dog wound) and even give the dog's neck a light wipe as well, and of course always check daily for ANY signs of redness. If there is redness, stop use of the collar and allow it to clear up completely before using the collar again (keeping a close eye to make sure it is not recurring).

So no, GoE. Your collar did not cause "burn holes" in your dog's neck and the wounds created were NOT the result of the e-stim.

There is an incident that did occur once (that I read of) and it related to the confinement system collar (ie "invisible fence unit"). Somehow the battery in the collar corrupted and it leaked on to the dog's neck, causing a burn. I cannot recall if there was owner error involved in that or whether it was a very unfortunate but hopefully isolated collar fault. Disclaimer : I don't recall where the incident occurred (ie which Country) nor which unit brand it was. I don't even know how reliable the account was as far as truth is concerned.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Erny

[corvus]

I don't think I could ever bring myself to leave an electronic collar on my dogs unattended. I just cannot bring myself to trust them. That's me, though. Fortunately our dogs quit the barking when we moved them inside. They now stay in all day when I'm working in the city, which amounts to about 9.5 hours. When I'm working from home the door stays open, but mostly they snooze inside anyway. I was really sad about putting them inside rather than the yard, but I think I was wrong to be sad. They are happier inside from what I can tell. They are not spending the day barking in distress, so I can only assume they are happier inside.

[Aidan]

The electronic collars of yesteryears were what I would call "shock" collars. Designed in a way that the stimulation from them transferred through the dog's neck and which is NOT the way of modern e-collars.

The level of shock is much lower now, and usually effective at barely perceptible levels. It's still an electric current and always has been.

I agree with Erny, the red marks were very, very unlikely to be burns.

[Aidan]

Generally, the collar will be less effective if the dog is highly motivated to bark. If a citronella collar or an e-collar at a low setting were ineffective, it would suggest to me that other steps need to be taken to address the dog's physical and mental well-being. There may still be a case for using more aversion, but just be clear that the dog is highly motivated to bark for a reason (either that or the collar was defective, and many cheap ones are).

[Erny]

The level of shock is much lower now, and usually effective at barely perceptible levels. It's still an electric current and always has been.

I agree with Erny, the red marks were very, very unlikely to be burns.

Tens machines are electrical currents too, although I don't go to my chiropractor for "shock" therapy. (LOL ..... I go somewhere else for that .) Technically you are probably right, Aidan, but it is well known that people's perceptions of "shock" are vastly different to words such as "stimulation". So for the purposes of describing in a way that readers could imagine at least as accurately as possible of what I'm speaking about, no, I disagree that the stimulation from an anti-bark collar would be rightly referred to as a "shock" (implying, even if inadvertently, in this instance "electric shock" ).

Although "static shock" might be a bit closer to the right description - something akin to what we feel when we get a static shock from the car after alighting. If it needs to be as high as that.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Erny

[Aidan]

I'm inclined to agree with Aidan on the aversiveness of citronella collars. There was a peculiar presentation at the NDTF conference from someone that had done a pilot study on citronella collars. Her sample size was way small and she failed to get a significant result to indicate that the citronella collar was aversive. Well, she said it was significant, but just barely and with so few dogs and not very convincing results in other measures in the study you have to wonder if one could conclude anything from it at all. If it was so horrible I feel sure she would have got better results than she did, even with the small numbers she had. Isn't Direct Stop citronella? I'm pretty dubious about that one, too.

I think the collars themselves are aversive, but not because they use citronella. It's very easy to demonstrate that a substance is aversive across a population, and so far it hasn't been done except in insects.

One thing about both citronella and e-collars for barking, salivary cortisol levels rise initially but then they drop back to baseline levels very quickly. The timing is so good the dog learns how to avoid the aversive then pays it no mind (does not walk around too afraid to bark, just doesn't bark). The story is different if the dog has a genuine reason to bark or the collar is being triggered by other dogs barking - then I would imagine (inferring from other data) that salivary cortisol levels would rise very quickly and stay there for a long time.

[Jake-K9]

Erny, last year... I'll come back and post more later, rather busy now, gotta run off >_<

[Erny]

I think the collars themselves are aversive, but not because they use citronella. It's very easy to demonstrate that a substance is aversive across a population, and so far it hasn't been done except in insects.

There is (going by the smell of it) a Citronella bush growing on the front boundary corner of a house I often walk past. My boy loves sniffing along the usual "special spots" (dog pee corners etc) but he very obviously arcs away from that particular bush. Has done from day dot with no other known or obvious reason for it other than the fact that it smells of citronella.

One thing about both citronella and e-collars for barking, salivary cortisol levels rise initially but then they drop back to baseline levels very quickly. The timing is so good the dog learns how to avoid the aversive then pays it no mind (does not walk around too afraid to bark, just doesn't bark). The story is different if the dog has a genuine reason to bark or the collar is being triggered by other dogs barking - then I would imagine (inferring from other data) that salivary cortisol levels would rise very quickly and stay there for a long time.

I agree with you here, Aidan. Whenever I receive a call out by someone who has a dog with a barking issue (complaint from neighbour/council) I always go through the steps of working to find out "why". The cause needs to be addressed, as do the symptoms for the sake of residual "learnt behaviour" once the cause has been removed, if that has been reasonably possible.

[Aidan]

Although "static shock" might be a bit closer to the right description - something akin to what we feel when we get a static shock from the car after alighting. If it needs to be as high as that.

Oooh no, getting a static shock from the carpet is nasty!

[Erny]

Oooh no, getting a static shock from the carpet is nasty!

LOL .... I won't ask what you're doing on the carpet for its static shock to affect you so, Aidan. I trust the effect is enough to stop you, at any rate.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Erny

[Aidan]

I think the collars themselves are aversive, but not because they use citronella. It's very easy to demonstrate that a substance is aversive across a population, and so far it hasn't been done except in insects.

There is (going by the smell of it) a Citronella bush growing on the front boundary corner of a house I often walk past. My boy loves sniffing along the usual "special spots" (dog pee corners etc) but he very obviously arcs away from that particular bush. Has done from day dot with no other known or obvious reason for it other than the fact that it smells of citronella.

Does it look like this? http://www.oisat.org/images/lemongras1.jpg I would be interested to know if he does avoid it if it is citronella and if he has ever worn a citronella collar? As I said, it really hasn't been demonstrated across a population but there could be individuals who avoid it (not either of my dogs though!) In any case, I think we can all agree that it would be better if they just used plain water or something inert that no dogs in a population will find naturally aversive or an irritant.

[Aidan]

Oooh no, getting a static shock from the carpet is nasty!

LOL .... I won't ask what you're doing on the carpet for its static shock to affect you so, Aidan. I trust the effect is enough to stop you, at any rate.

Errmmm, let's call it "yoga"

Edited May 19, 2010 by Aidan

[Erny]

Does it look like this? http://www.oisat.org/images/lemongras1.jpg I would be interested to know if he does avoid it if it is citronella and if he has ever worn a citronella collar?

No - I don't think so. I'll try to get a photo of it next time I pass and perhaps load it up here. It is a very definite citronella smell to me, though. Or ......... maybe I'm wrong, perhaps it is TeaTree Oil smell I'm smelling. Will need to go back there to check. It is stronger when the months are warmer, if I recall correctly.

Until I can clarify that - no, he's never experienced/worn a Citronella Collar.

As I said, it really hasn't been demonstrated across a population but there could be individuals who avoid it (not either of my dogs though!) In any case, I think we can all agree that it would be better if they just used plain water or something inert that no dogs in a population will find naturally aversive or an irritant.

I do remember reading somewhere of one or two dogs found to have had a very adverse reaction to Citronella and I believe one of the dogs died from it. Something akin to an Anaphylaxis reaction. But perhaps that can happen with anything - like people and nuts. I think the other one I read caused swelling to the dog's lips/eyes (mucus membrane contact). And I have read that it can cause paralysis in rats. Doesn't mean dogs though. But hey .... why chance it when there is another good alternative.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Erny

[indigirl]

I don't think I could ever bring myself to leave an electronic collar on my dogs unattended. I just cannot bring myself to trust them. That's me, though. Fortunately our dogs quit the barking when we moved them inside. They now stay in all day when I'm working in the city, which amounts to about 9.5 hours. When I'm working from home the door stays open, but mostly they snooze inside anyway. I was really sad about putting them inside rather than the yard, but I think I was wrong to be sad. They are happier inside from what I can tell. They are not spending the day barking in distress, so I can only assume they are happier inside.

My dogs get cabin fever if they are cooped up inside for too long. During the heat of sumemr they are indoors 24/7 and are ok with it as they know the aircon is wayy nicer than being out in the heat. This time of year however they go stir crazy if they dont get to go outsode much. Part of the problem is that i am not a morning person and I find it hard enough to get up in time for work - let alone having time to exercise them before work. I have tried to work on this soo many times but I can never stick to getting up early. As a result my dogs get all their exercise and playtime in the evenings. In the mornings im more like"ugh.. outside.. ugh..gooddog... ugh... bye" to them. My dogs all sleep indoors all year round and my golden is a problem indoor barker as well, she simply loves to bark. She will be fed, warm, played with, exercised, and STILL she barks at me. Soemtimes I will be petting her and she will bark in my face, its really frustrating. Im sure she thinks her name is "Shut Up Karma" now lol.

Not sure how other non-morning ppl deal with this issue. its easy to say sjut get up earlier, but its far far harder to do it and stick to it. I manage it once or twice then the next day i sleep in .. and the next etc etc.

[corvus]

So for the purposes of describing in a way that readers could imagine at least as accurately as possible of what I'm speaking about, no, I disagree that the stimulation from an anti-bark collar would be rightly referred to as a "shock" (implying, even if inadvertently, in this instance "electric shock" ).

Come on, Erny, let's not mince words. If it's aversive enough to avoid and it happens of a sudden it's a shock in my books. OH one Christmas got toy remote control tanks and when your tank got shot you'd get an electric shock through the controller. It wasn't much more than an unpleasant tingle (a "stim" using the e-collar PC term), but the quality of the tingle drove me insane and made my flesh crawl. It doesn't just instantly go away, either. I used to be a wuss about those tens machines and insisted on low levels, but the area would still tingle unpleasantly for a while after they turned it off. The only reason I wouldn't call it a shock is because it was expected and prolonged. I don't think there's any need to dress up or dress down electric collars. They are what they are meant to be, which is aversive. "Shock" is aversive language. "Stim", not so much. That's an ambiguous word. I say the aversive language is honest.