Can Electric Pulse Collars Be Used Humanely

[Weasels]

If a dog is working it's fairly likely he/she won't see a snake before the snake sees them anyway.

Edited August 5, 2013 by TheLBD

[corvus]

An e-collar is EASIER than a reward?? I call BS on that one. How is it possible that clicking a clicker is somehow more difficult or easier to get wrong than pressing a button that shocks a dog? A clicker only has one level, for starters, and mechanically it's pretty much the same as pressing a button on a remote. Plus negative reinforcement is notoriously difficult for the average trainer to grasp. Just ask someone who rehabs horses. Most of the dog training world IME thinks of NR as a clumsy, unpleasant tool, which it doesn't have to be at all. I personally love NR for particular scenarios and always seem to be sticking up for it, but the stuff I'm talking about using it for is way off the radar for most. No matter what quadrant or tool you use, timing is critical, and usually a limiting factor by my reckoning. Aim small, miss small. Most people are lumpers, if they even manage to be that effective. Half the battle is getting them to notice what they need to notice. Most of the rest is getting them to deliver some kind of consequence within a second of the target behaviour. I'd rather they stuff up with a reward, thanks.

All of which has little bearing on the use of e-collars for snake aversion. Someone on a clicker list ages ago trained their hunting dogs to alert to snakes. They thought it worked better than aversion. I'm sure people will continue to use this tool for this purpose for a long time to come, and that's their choice. Meanwhile, other people will choose not to and their dogs won't die. That's their choice. My previous dog had a natural aversion to snakes. We should breed more like that. ;)

[huski]

A lot of dog owners and even experienced trainers struggle to get reward delivery right. You can still use rewards in conjunction with using an e collar but the skill needed to get reward delivery right to get even close to the results you can get with an e collar, in any where near the same amount of time is just not possible for some dog owners.

Edited August 5, 2013 by huski

[snake catcher]

What about a service that people could utilise for training their dog?

The trainers would themselves be trained in the use of the collar,

People could come with their dogs and observe the training and be confident that their would not harass a snake

if it should happen to come across it.

Other wildlife like bluetongues and marsupials could be incorporated.

Would need someone very good with dogs and experienced with the collar, (not me)

and someone who knows snake and native animal behaviour and is licenced to supply the topic animal (thats me)

Snake Aversion Therapy could take off.

This way Joe Sixpack dosn't get his or her hand on the button with out watching the pro 1st

I have a few plans and ideas if anyone wants to pm me.

Edited August 5, 2013 by snake catcher

[OSoSwift]

Sounding good to me SC

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Trouble with e-collar is you still need to do some training. Ie train the dog what to do when it feels the zap.

Otherwise you may find you get a dog on being zapped runs in a straight line until out of zapper trigger range or further. Or blames the zap on the snake and attacks it.

If you can train a dog what to do when it gets zapped, you can also train a dog what to do when it sees a snake - without the zapper.

I do think someone who knows how to do the training, and someone else who knows how to safely provide some snakes (or other critters), could be a big help. Pretty sure my dog would bark at a snake from 2m away and not touch it because that's what she does with every other critter (except insects).

[huski]

Trouble with e-collar is you still need to do some training. Ie train the dog what to do when it feels the zap.

I'm not sure why that's a downside, it's not magic, it's just a tool - of course you need to do training with it?

If you can train a dog what to do when it gets zapped, you can also train a dog what to do when it sees a snake - without the zapper.

What would you suggest?

[Nekhbet]

Wouldn't bet it on an e-collar either. I'd bet it on having a dog safely crated inside or the provision of adequate supervision.

The aversion training is used mainly in working dogs, like detection dogs and working dogs. So we lock them up during snake season? Bugger if you're up north where it's snake season all the time, those dogs will spend their entire lives in crates then.

All of which has little bearing on the use of e-collars for snake aversion. Someone on a clicker list ages ago trained their hunting dogs to alert to snakes. They thought it worked better than aversion.

Good luck to them. If you had a detection dog already trained to alert on a scent why would you want them to alert on something no target? You want the dog to avoid it and get on with it's job, not reward an already high drive dog for showing any interest in something that would potentially kill it. The point is a lot of people want total avoidance, that there is NO reward factor in this situation at all and there is nothing to gain. The point is the dog is to think, oh crap snake OPPOSITE DIRECTION NOW, not Oooooh snake, let's stare at it for a bit.

Pretty sure my dog would bark at a snake from 2m away and not touch it because that's what she does with every other critter (except insects).

It's these pages of people saying I reckon, I know etc. The point of the training is to cement the behavior when you are not in range, or home, or near the dog. Teach the dog to think the situation provides the aversive, not the owner, and thats how to train a dog not to touch snakes.

[BCNut]

You appear to base your e collar experience on a neighbour, who, from what you say, wrecked his dogs with an e collar. If this was the case then your neighbour clearly did not know how to use one. Keeping a dog away from a random snake, if you live or walk your dogs in an area they are prone, is not inhumane, it is common sense. My experience with snakes is if you leave them alone, they leave you alone, so teaching your dog to stay well clear is best for all.

The type of stim used for general training is so low it cannot be felt by us and causes the dog no pain. Certainly more humane than a jerk on check chain, for example.

That's not at all what I base my theory on, its simply one piece of tangible evidence that these devices ARE misused EVERYDAY. I don't care how 'properly' you use your e-collar; the principle remains the same. It's aversive, just like a check chain and we now know, thanks to scientific literature, that these devices are no longer required in modern canine training. Anything you can do with an e-collar you can do utilising correct positive/progressive reinforcement techniques - without risking the side effects of aversive training.

I'd bet it on having a dog safely crated inside or the provision of adequate supervision.

How does one utilise a farm dog when it has to be kept crated lest it get bitten by a snake? Herding of sheep and cattle rarely takes place with the dog at close enough quarters that the owner would see the snake before the dog did. We could potentially have snakes within a few metres of the house given we live on the back of bushland, I certainly won't be restricting my dogs from the backyard for the rest of their lives just in case. I'd much rather train avoidance if I could, infact we have two pet snakes and I'm quite tempted to do some training at home having read this thread, I don't have access to an e-collar but I'll look in to other options.

I'm only suggesting they are crated in a safe place when appropriate supervision is not possible i.e. you are not home. If a working dog is working - they couldn't care less about a snake. If for some reason they do - all well trained sheepdogs must have a solid stop. This is where that comes in without the need for an e-collar. If the dog isn't actively on the stock, a solid recall will remove the dog from danger.

A lot of dog owners and even experienced trainers struggle to get reward delivery right. You can still use rewards in conjunction with using an e collar but the skill needed to get reward delivery right to get even close to the results you can get with an e collar, in any where near the same amount of time is just not possible for some dog owners.

Just like a lot of dog owners with minimal experience/exposure to canine training in general struggle with the application of corrections. Using an e-collar does not dismiss that consideration. I hear your argument that someone can be trained in the correct use of an e-collar, just like they can be trained in the correct application of +R. If a novice handler is going to be a bit sloppy with either technique, +R is going to be far safer with less potential for negative side effects and removes the temptation of using an aversive training tool as a crutch.

Wouldn't bet it on an e-collar either. I'd bet it on having a dog safely crated inside or the provision of adequate supervision.

The aversion training is used mainly in working dogs, like detection dogs and working dogs. So we lock them up during snake season? Bugger if you're up north where it's snake season all the time, those dogs will spend their entire lives in crates then.

See above. Not what I was suggesting, only when they can't be supervised.

[BlackJaq]

Wow this same thread in the training section barely got a full page of comments..

I'm pretty amazed at how many people are completely opposed to using them, although maybe it's a breed thing ;)

I guess somebody with a pet dog is not going to see the need for 100% obedience compared to somebody with a working dog and somebody with a low drive dog or who does not put their dog in a highly arousing working situation is probably not going to see the need for using any aversives in training.

[_PL_]

Sounding good to me SC

Same. Someone behind the wheel needs to know what they're doing and a service like that could save some lives.

This is all theory on my part anyway. I don't even own a check chain.

They are the simplest thing to use yet I still see dogs choking and gagging. No wonder people worry about e-collars.

[Tazar]

You appear to base your e collar experience on a neighbour, who, from what you say, wrecked his dogs with an e collar. If this was the case then your neighbour clearly did not know how to use one. Keeping a dog away from a random snake, if you live or walk your dogs in an area they are prone, is not inhumane, it is common sense. My experience with snakes is if you leave them alone, they leave you alone, so teaching your dog to stay well clear is best for all. The type of stim used for general training is so low it cannot be felt by us and causes the dog no pain. Certainly more humane than a jerk on check chain, for example.

That's not at all what I base my theory on, its simply one piece of tangible evidence that these devices ARE misused EVERYDAY. I don't care how 'properly' you use your e-collar; the principle remains the same. It's aversive, just like a check chain and we now know, thanks to scientific literature, that these devices are no longer required in modern canine training. Anything you can do with an e-collar you can do utilising correct positive/progressive reinforcement techniques - without risking the side effects of aversive training

So you believe in +R training only then??

[Weasels]

Blackjaq that's because there is no reason for there to be two threads on the same thing.

--

I am open to considering other training methods, but there are a number of stumbling blocks on this for me. Firstly being, as I mentioned, I would need to have absolute faith in the electrics, which I don't. Secondly it would need to be demonstrably more effective than a method which didn't involve gadgets and unpleasantness. I spend all day with my dogs, quick and easy aren't important conditions for me. But the plural of anecdote is not data, and I'm not convinced this is the best or only way to go. I do have the gut reaction to panic and do something extreme because snakes, my childhood dog was bitten twice, and we do have them on our doorstep sometimes. But my gut reaction lacks critical thought, so I don't have to believe it without question.

Thirdly, when I or someone else use/s aversives on my dogs they have some level of emotional reaction, often some fear. Fear is absolutely the last emotion I want to rely on in a crisis. There'll be enough of that from me. I know from reactivity training that when afraid Weez will fight and flight in equal measure based on his own set of doggy variables. We've worked long and hard to get fear out of his life so he can think and listen, I'm not going to risk putting it back in so he goes back to making his own (bad) decisions under stress. I know some amazing trainers, but no-one I'd trust with that button.

Point of all this being, no my reasoning isn't just "ZOMG Cruel!!1!". My dogs live their lives off-leash on a property with a road running through it and access to various prey animals, so yes I do care about reliability. I'm sure someone else could run through the same variables and come up with a different conclusion, but that is between them and their dog.

efs

Edited August 6, 2013 by TheLBD

[darlingdog]

Shaking my head in disbelief at just how many of you think an e-collar is ok to use on dogs. Its NOT ok ! Poor bloody dogs.

Neither is a steel cap boot, or a lump of wood, or being banished from family time, in the hands of an idiot. Please do some thorough research into the positive benefits of this training tool and how it could save an animals life before you come to this conclusion.

You're entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.

[BCNut]

So you believe in +R training only then??

Yes. I've only seen negative outcomes from dogs that are struck, screamed at, intimidated, collar corrected, and/or electrocuted. Short term interruptions of unwanted behaviour, yep absolutely belting or similar will stop a dog doing what its doing. Long term outcomes, a resounding no and more often than not a modification in the animal's behaviour that results in the next step in the aggression continuum being taken. We should all know on here that a canine will pair negative environmental stimuli a lot easier than that of positive, unfortunately. Sometimes it only takes one exposure.

I agree with what LBD says above, in that, the only basis for the argument against aversive techniques should not be 'ZOMG CRUEL' - there are actual real risks and negatives to this training as outlined in said post and my previous arguments.

Not that I am ignorant of cruelty to our best mates. Last year the Cambridge 'Declaration on Consciousness' made clear that animals as simple (in anatomical and physiological terms) as jellyfish are capable of possessing the same level of consciousness of humans. So anyone who alleges that e-collars are an appropriate means of indicating disagreement with a dog's decision to investigate a snake, or something on the other side of the fence - or anything for that matter should ask themselves if they think it is reasonable to strap one around the NECK (not HAND) of their own child to train them what they can and cannot investigate? Anthropomorphism you say? Yep. But the word has less and less significance in this context as more and more science emerges on ethology.

For your consideration (Direct quotation with modified source formatting - full reference path: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf):

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness*

On this day of July 7, 2012, a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists gathered at The University of Cambridge to reassess the neurobiological substrates of conscious experience and related behaviors in human and non-human animals. While comparative research on this topic is naturally hampered by the inability of non-human animals, and often humans, to clearly and readily communicate about their internal states, the following observations can be stated unequivocally:

• The field of Consciousness research is rapidly evolving. Abundant new techniques and strategies for human and non-human animal research have been developed. Consequently, more data is becoming readily available, and this calls for a periodic reevaluation of previously held preconceptions in this field. Studies of non-human animals have shown that homologous brain circuits correlated with conscious experience and perception can be selectively facilitated and disrupted to assess whether they are in fact necessary for those experiences. Moreover, in humans, new non-invasive techniques are readily available to survey the correlates of consciousness.
  
• The neural substrates of emotions do not appear to be confined to cortical structures. In fact, subcortical neural networks aroused during affective states in humans are also critically important for generating emotional behaviors in animals. Artificial arousal of the same brain regions generates corresponding behavior and feeling states in both humans and non-human animals. Wherever in the brain one evokes instinctual emotional behaviors in non-human animals, many of the ensuing behaviors are consistent with experienced feeling states, including those internal states that are rewarding and punishing. Deep brain stimulation of these systems in humans can also generate similar affective states. Systems associated with affect are concentrated in subcortical regions where neural homologies abound. Young human and non- human animals without neocortices retain these brain-mind functions. Furthermore, neural circuits supporting behavioral/electrophysiological states of attentiveness, sleep and decision making appear to have arisen in evolution as early as the invertebrate radiation, being evident in insects and cephalopod mollusks (e.g., octopus).
  
• Birds appear to offer, in their behavior, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy a striking case of parallel evolution of consciousness. Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots. Mammalian and avian emotional networks and cognitive microcircuitries appear to be far more homologous than previously thought. Moreover, certain species of birds have been found to exhibit neural sleep patterns similar to those of mammals, including REM sleep and, as was demonstrated in zebra finches, neurophysiological patterns, previously thought to require a mammalian neocortex. Magpies in particular have been shown to exhibit striking similarities to humans, great apes, dolphins, and elephants in studies of mirror self-recognition.
  
• In humans, the effect of certain hallucinogens appears to be associated with a disruption in cortical feedforward and feedback processing. Pharmacological interventions in non-human animals with compounds known to affect conscious behavior in humans can lead to similar perturbations in behavior in non-human animals. In humans, there is evidence to suggest that awareness is correlated with cortical activity, which does not exclude possible contributions by subcortical or early cortical processing, as in visual awareness. Evidence that human and non- human animal emotional feelings arise from homologous subcortical brain networks provide compelling evidence for evolutionarily shared primal affective qualia.
  

We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non- human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”

* The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness was written by Philip Low and edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van Swinderen, Philip Low and Christof Koch. The Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012, at the Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals, at Churchill College, University of Cambridge, by Low, Edelman and Koch. The Declaration was signed by the conference participants that very evening, in the presence of Stephen Hawking, in the Balfour Room at the Hotel du Vin in Cambridge, UK. The signing ceremony was memorialized by CBS 60 Minutes.

[Nekhbet]

An e-collar is EASIER than a reward?? I call BS on that one. How is it possible that clicking a clicker is somehow more difficult or easier to get wrong than pressing a button that shocks a dog?

I'm only suggesting they are crated in a safe place when appropriate supervision is not possible i.e. you are not home. If a working dog is working - they couldn't care less about a snake.

So say a feral cat detection dog moving through scrub way out ahead of you. How do you use a clicker out there when sometimes you can't even see the dog? How do you make sure when the dog goes out of sight it will remember the lesson about snakes when it's so driven with it's nose planted in excitement?

That's not at all what I base my theory on, its simply one piece of tangible evidence that these devices ARE misused EVERYDAY. I don't care how 'properly' you use your e-collar; the principle remains the same. It's aversive, just like a check chain and we now know, thanks to scientific literature, that these devices are no longer required in modern canine training. Anything you can do with an e-collar you can do utilising correct positive/progressive reinforcement techniques - without risking the side effects of aversive training

I've seen plenty of 'gentle' alternatives cause harm. Physical scars. Dogs out of control.

Remember the option to failing R+ only training in behaviors like aggressive responses is death. Because that's scientifically so much better. Don't make me list the dog's I've saved from the green dream because of a basic correction chain. I guess those dogs didn't get to read the scientific papers that said they should respond better to R+ only.

[huski]

Yes. I've only seen negative outcomes from dogs that are struck, screamed at, intimidated, collar corrected, and/or electrocuted.

I think a common problem with people who only believe in +R is that it shows a lack of understanding of how you can practically apply the other quadrants. I've not ever met any trainer that can only train a dog with +R, it just is not possible.

It is really hard to discuss training with +R only people because it turns into an emotive argument, and it is as though the only two options for training is handing over a reward to your dog or beating your dog into submission.

BTW, e-collars don't electrocute dogs, if that is what you believe happens it just demonstrates you extreme lack of understanding of how the tool actually works not just training wise but as a piece of technology.

Dogs aren't human children and we do them a disservice if we assume they think, feel and learn the same way as a child.

[BCNut]

I've seen plenty of 'gentle' alternatives cause harm. Physical scars. Dogs out of control.

Remember the option to failing R+ only training in behaviors like aggressive responses is death. Because that's scientifically so much better. Don't make me list the dog's I've saved from the green dream because of a basic correction chain. I guess those dogs didn't get to read the scientific papers that said they should respond better to R+ only.

No, please, do elaborate. How is it that +R causes (or caused) physical scars? Please, I would like to hear of tangible examples where a check collar alone has saved a dog from euthanasia. No I guess they missed the memo - I guess they also missed the opportunity to be raised by an owner with a basic understanding of how canine behaviour works.

Any methodology of training needs to be honed, yes. Inappropriate timing/reward placement etc can cause backward steps in +R training. But the onus is on the owner to seek appropriate instruction in relation to the application of the training.

Also, the sentence highlighted in bold doesn't make sense.

[BCNut]

Yes. I've only seen negative outcomes from dogs that are struck, screamed at, intimidated, collar corrected, and/or electrocuted.

I think a common problem with people who only believe in +R is that it shows a lack of understanding of how you can practically apply the other quadrants. I've not ever met any trainer that can only train a dog with +R, it just is not possible.

Yes, but one needs only stretch as far as -P. When used correctly, it is just as effective as +P.

It is really hard to discuss training with +R only people because it turns into an emotive argument, and it is as though the only two options for training is handing over a reward to your dog or beating your dog into submission.

These are two examples at the utter extreme corners of the operant conditioning quadrant and by and far not my way of thinking at all. I don't know what the point you're trying to make here is? If it is lack of understanding that you see as the problem then education and awareness is the solution. If you are frustrated by the argument, then I suggest it may be you that has become emotive in that setting.

BTW, e-collars don't electrocute dogs, if that is what you believe happens it just demonstrates you extreme lack of understanding of how the tool actually works not just training wise but as a piece of technology.

Dogs aren't human children and we do them a disservice if we assume they think, feel and learn the same way as a child.

Don't assume what I do and don't know. I understand completely the operation of an e-collar. I've used them before - I have an educated opinion. Otherwise I would not have engaged in this debate.

How is it a disservice to elevate the status of the dog?

[Aidan3]

So say a feral cat detection dog moving through scrub way out ahead of you. How do you use a clicker out there when sometimes you can't even see the dog?

You do realise that people who train feral cat detection dogs do actually use +R to teach this?

How do you make sure when the dog goes out of sight it will remember the lesson about snakes when it's so driven with it's nose planted in excitement?

This is not one of the problems with +R that -R seeks to solve and I would suggest that anyone who chooses to use an e-collar simply because the dog is excited and out of sight should not be training detection dogs.