What's Something Universally Mildly Aversive?

[corvus]

I agree with Erny that it's a damn shame that experts are perpetuating the idea that e collars are somehow inherently nastier than other types of aversive. It all too easily becomes a vicious and illogical cycle. "The ethics committee don't let us use e collars because they're so nasty" - "how do we know they're nasty" - "because the ethics committee don't allow us to use them". I see this attitude in vet school too, which is perhaps why it really bugs me. I'd rather see the experts leading the way & showing how these devices can be used ethically, instead of bowing to uninformed public pressure and putting them on the banned list.

It's my thread so I'm allowed to take it off topic a little. ;) I think it's valuable to discuss these issues as future professionals. I've always found Karen Overall to be a very practical and sensible scientist and she has loads of experience treating problem behaviours in dogs and cats as a vet behaviourist. She wrote a paper a few years ago on e-collars I'm sure you've all seen, and her considered conclusion was that while e-collars were very useful for professionals and could actually be not very stressful at all for dogs when used well, when not used well they were the opposite. She went on to judge that the majority of pet owners were not skilled enough to use them well and should therefore not be encouraged to use them at all. She didn't call for a ban on them or damn their use in general, just looked at the evidence and made an informed call on it.

I think that there has been a backlash against tools like e-collars largely because of their widespread misuse. Not here so much, but in other places such as the UK and the States. Things that have been badly misused in the past get treatment like this. It's just how it goes. The pendulum swings and all that. I think that common sense will eventually prevail and whatever that turns out to be will reflect the moral standards of that country. So far only Wales has banned them afaik. I think that the UK feeling towards them may be a bit more vehement than ours for various cultural reasons. That's them.

A bad taste, or a jet of air or water, seems much kinder to me & less likely to cause long term issues for the dogs. Not sure if every dog would find these aversive, but you could always try it out & scratch the dogs that didn't find it aversive?

I could, yes. Preferably I could find something that was a little aversive to the majority of dogs, but I can hope that I get enough participants that it won't matter if I need to exclude some. The police dog unit has tentatively agreed to allow me access to their 180 odd dogs, so that's quite promising. They are my favourite people right now. I will need other types of dogs for the pilot study at least, though.

[corvus]

...and all rats love a sucrose solution.

... unless they are suffering depression, which usually only happens when we shock them and they can't do anything to avoid it.

(ETA: several times, not just the once)

Ah, exactly.

And have you read the one about standard housed rats that show more anticipatory behaviour for a sucrose reward than enriched housed rats? It seems a bit like contrafreeloading. It's a van der Harst paper. I thought it was up there with the Burman paper recently posted on the ABAT list for interesting papers.

[Erny]

I think that there has been a backlash against tools like e-collars largely because of their widespread misuse. Not here so much, but in other places such as the UK and the States. Things that have been badly misused in the past get treatment like this. It's just how it goes.

Actually, things that have not caused harm get treatment like that. There is the PPCollar (banned in Victoria) even though "there is no reported evidence of harm" (as admitted by the current Government, in writing) from their use. And then there is the RSPCA -vs- Innotek Court Case debacle, where RSPCA fabricated evidence in an attempt to win their even now perpetual attempts to ban the use of the e-collar (why fabricate if real "harm" was caused?), so far successfully in all States of Australia except (surprisingly) for Victoria (yay for us). So I don't blame me for being cynical and skeptical when it comes to statements such as "because of widespread misuse". What "widespread misuse"?

Sorry Corvus - yes, this is OT and I really do apologise for that. I know this is not what your thread is about. But statements such as "things that have been badly misused in the past get treatment like this" is so wrong. So many other pieces of equipment are misused - in the past AND in the present. But depending on the influence they are given - especially by organisations who know that the general unknowing public would not even THINK to question their opinion - and the political persuasion that/those org/s have makes a difference as to whether those pieces of equipment "get treatment like this" or not. "Harm" doesn't really seem to have much to do with it. At least not here in Australia.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Erny

[corvus]

But statements such as "things that have been badly misused in the past get treatment like this" is so wrong.

We live in a globalised world. What has been misused elsewhere does impact on the decisions made in other countries. Believe it or don't. I would hope that we can learn from what has occurred in other places and incorporate those lessons into our own decisions. So no, the statement is not categorically "wrong". It is wrong to suggest e-collars have not caused harm. They have the capacity to, so to assume they haven't here is treading thin ice IMO.

Yes, other tools are misused. It's the capacity of the tool to do harm and the ease with which it can be misused that most impacts how it is treated IMO. But that's how I see it. I stand by my original statement, but acknowledge that you disagree. Let's please leave it at that for now.

[The Spotted Devil]

corvus, is nausea sufficient? There are a number of food aversion studies with livestock in the literature. Perhaps it would be less prone to habituation?

[Staff'n'Toller]

I find success rate with bitter lime spray is about 20%.

It could be the way it's being used, or not used! But that's what I tend to find.

I work with a Vet who sits on an ethics committee so it will be interesting to see what eventually gets through.

[m-j]

ETA The original idea was food versus, say, a rock or piece of metal. Something that is entirely disappointing could be aversive enough.

I think the above is a good idea. Entirely disappointing will definately be universal, is only a mild adversive so should be ethical, and habituation will most likely not occur (boring rarely stops being boring, unless the dog has the opportunity to become innovative with the rock or metal).

ETA Because the signal is important I'm assuming all the concomittant clues that the signal is going to be given need to be identical, perhaps you could have the food scent present (that the dog can't access) with the rock or metal.

cheers

M-J

Edited August 8, 2010 by m-j

[corvus]

ETA Because the signal is important I'm assuming all the concomittant clues that the signal is going to be given need to be identical, perhaps you could have the food scent present (that the dog can't access) with the rock or metal.

Oo, good idea.

We have some stuff from the vet that we put on Erik after he got desexed. It must taste heinous, because it certainly deterred him and Kivi from licking the wound. I think it wears off fast, as does the bitter spray you can get. If Kivi smells it he backs off quite hastily. Funny, because Erik doesn't back off, at least, not until he's actually had a quick taste just to make sure it's still disgusting. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm interested in. Dogs that try something risky just in case it turns out to be good.

Good to know bitter lime isn't especially universal.

[JulesP]

A vet gave me some stuff years ago to put on wounds. It is dimethyl pthalate. The dogs certainly do not like that!

[Aidan]

I've never met a dog who likes worming tablets :-)

[Staranais]

It's my thread so I'm allowed to take it off topic a little. ;) I think it's valuable to discuss these issues as future professionals. I've always found Karen Overall to be a very practical and sensible scientist and she has loads of experience treating problem behaviours in dogs and cats as a vet behaviourist. She wrote a paper a few years ago on e-collars I'm sure you've all seen, and her considered conclusion was that while e-collars were very useful for professionals and could actually be not very stressful at all for dogs when used well, when not used well they were the opposite. She went on to judge that the majority of pet owners were not skilled enough to use them well and should therefore not be encouraged to use them at all. She didn't call for a ban on them or damn their use in general, just looked at the evidence and made an informed call on it.

If it's the paper I'm thinking of (and it may not be), she still only considered studies of high-stim ecollar "shock" protocols. She did not discuss any low-stim mildly aversive protocols.

IMO, that's kind of like writing about the uses of deprivation in training, but only considering extreme cases. "Deprivation" can range from putting the dog in a 2 minute time out, to putting him in solitary confinement for a week. It's invalid to only look at the extreme cases and then extrapolate that back & declare that deprivation should only be used by professionals since we just can't trust members of the public to know the difference between a week of solitary confinement and a 2 min time out.

I think that there has been a backlash against tools like e-collars largely because of their widespread misuse. Not here so much, but in other places such as the UK and the States. Things that have been badly misused in the past get treatment like this. It's just how it goes. The pendulum swings and all that. I think that common sense will eventually prevail and whatever that turns out to be will reflect the moral standards of that country.

I hope so. I personally wish you couldn't purchase e collars with high-level stim on them except under license from a vet or trainer or something. An e-collar that only offers the lower stim levels is practically impossible to abuse, whereas the high shock levels available on most collars can cause fear and pain if misused. Granted, most collars can cause pain if misused, but why not make the e-collar as foolproof as possible?

But alas, I'm not yet queen.

I could, yes. Preferably I could find something that was a little aversive to the majority of dogs, but I can hope that I get enough participants that it won't matter if I need to exclude some. The police dog unit has tentatively agreed to allow me access to their 180 odd dogs, so that's quite promising. They are my favourite people right now. I will need other types of dogs for the pilot study at least, though.

Oh that is promising! Hooray for the police.

[Staranais]

I've never met a dog who likes worming tablets :-)

My old dog used to do tricks for them. Mind you, he was rather special.

[bedazzledx2]

Mine do!!!! Swallow first because it might resemble food!!!! I have to be careful not to drop tablets on the floor because they will scarfe them up without tasting!!!!

I've never met a dog who likes worming tablets :-)

[Aidan3]

But what if you mix them in with their normal food? Do they still like them then?

Mine do!!!! Swallow first because it might resemble food!!!! I have to be careful not to drop tablets on the floor because they will scarfe them up without tasting!!!!

I've never met a dog who likes worming tablets :-)

[bedazzledx2]

LOL Thats how they get their pills. I trained them that way....rattle a pill bottle give a treat, do this a few times. Now its rattle a pill bottle...dogs come running, poke a pill in a treat and its inhaled! I feed BARF and all their fish oil capsules and supplements just get thrown in the bowl and eaten completely. No fussiness in this household!!!!

But what if you mix them in with their normal food? Do they still like them then?

Mine do!!!! Swallow first because it might resemble food!!!! I have to be careful not to drop tablets on the floor because they will scarfe them up without tasting!!!!

I've never met a dog who likes worming tablets :-)

[corvus]

If it's the paper I'm thinking of (and it may not be), she still only considered studies of high-stim ecollar "shock" protocols. She did not discuss any low-stim mildly aversive protocols.

IMO, that's kind of like writing about the uses of deprivation in training, but only considering extreme cases. "Deprivation" can range from putting the dog in a 2 minute time out, to putting him in solitary confinement for a week. It's invalid to only look at the extreme cases and then extrapolate that back & declare that deprivation should only be used by professionals since we just can't trust members of the public to know the difference between a week of solitary confinement and a 2 min time out.

Well, it depends on what your question is, doesn't it? If it's "What effect do high-stim e-collar protocols have on dogs?" then it's not invalid to only examine high-stim e-collar protocols.

How do you make a dog swallow a tablet before checking to see what it is? Is it conditioning, a sense of competition, or optimism?

[Aidan3]

How do you make a dog swallow a tablet before checking to see what it is? Is it conditioning, a sense of competition, or optimism?

Optimism. There's your thesis right there, I'll have my name right after yours thanks. Kthxbai.

[SharpShep]

This is my first post guy's so please don't slip into me as I am not posting to annoy anyone, but after reading this thread with interest there is something I feel needs to be said.

I agree that aversive training tools like E collars, prong collars, choker chains and head halters etc have the potential to harm a dog if misused, so the idea is to ban some of them. But the most aversive tools I have seen used on dogs like pieces of broom stick, rolled up newspapers, car heater hose, a boot in the backside with steel capped boots and a traditional bunch of fives which are tools and actions used to train dogs into submission of a highly abusive nature available to any yobbo who wants to mistreat their dog.

What I don't understand is how the banning of tools primarily targeted towards professional trainers is helpful to the dog's abused with a lump of broom stick on a daily basis, or should broom sticks, local papers and car heater hose be banned too I can't get my head around the constant targeting and banning of properly designed training tools that offer an aversive stimulus, while the hard core aversives that do harm dogs dramatically are put in the out of sight out of mind basket. I hope someone can see where I am coming from in my slightly twisted thought process

Edited August 9, 2010 by SharpShep

[Staranais]

Well, it depends on what your question is, doesn't it? If it's "What effect do high-stim e-collar protocols have on dogs?" then it's not invalid to only examine high-stim e-collar protocols. :D

How do you make a dog swallow a tablet before checking to see what it is? Is it conditioning, a sense of competition, or optimism?

That's sort of my point - if it's the paper I'm thinking of, and like I said may be different to the one you're thinking of, she only looked at high stim protocols, but just concluded that e-collars in general were risky. I thought that was either ignorant (she genuinely doesn't know the difference between different protocol types) or misleading (she's unwilling to discuss the difference). If I were writing a paper studying the Koehler "head held under water to discourage digging" technique, and concluded that all use of water in training was risky, I'd be making a similar error.

As for the other, I think he swallowed them so fast, he didn't have time to realise he didn't like the taste.

[corvus]

What I don't understand is how the banning of tools primarily targeted towards professional trainers is helpful to the dog's abused with a lump of broom stick on a daily basis, or should broom sticks, local papers and car heater hose be banned too I can't get my head around the constant targeting and banning of properly designed training tools that offer an aversive stimulus, while the hard core aversives that do harm dogs dramatically are put in the out of sight out of mind basket. I hope someone can see where I am coming from in my slightly twisted thought process

I don't think anyone on this forum necessarily advocates banning any training tools, although I could be wrong because if they were I doubt they'd be game to publicly say it!

But I think you would find that broom sticks used on dogs, kicking with steel-capped boots and hitting a dog hard enough to injure them would all be considered illegal. It is illegal to injure animals unnecessarily. Although there are always grey areas. If I saw someone hitting a dog with a broomstick you can bet I would report them and I would expect them to be facing animal cruelty convictions. My concern is the misuse of dedicated training tools resulting in cruelty to dogs. I do not think said training tools should be banned, but I do think if we can minimise their capacity to cause harm we should do that.

We will never be able to prevent cruelty by banning things that can be used in a cruel manner. However, if we are making purpose-built dog training tools with the capacity to do harm then I think we need to be extremely careful how those get distributed and used. I think we have a responsibility to dogs to protect them from the misuse of such tools where we can.