Can Electric Pulse Collars Be Used Humanely

[corvus]

I thought I was being cute.

[mita]

go read the Blackwell studies. Some answers are presented to some pertinent questions about e-collar use that rarely get much consideration in these kinds of discussions.

Thanks for the heads-up, corvus. The researchers compared e-collar training with rewards training. Finding was that those applying rewards training reported significantly more success than those using e-collar.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/8/93

That's the trend across groups, rewards more successful.

But there's still the question of individual cases. Genuine question. Would there be individual dogs who appear highly resistant to rewards based training ... but who'd respond to e-collars?

Also has anyone looked at pain/punishment responses in dogs? In humans, there's a group of people (& children) who don't have a normal fear response to pain/punishment. They tend to have the worst anti-social behaviours. And are resistant to physical punishment. The advice to modify their behaviour, is to use positive rewards.

Edited August 6, 2013 by mita

[Nekhbet]

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.

Two that spring to mind for me are a malamute who grabbed another trainer on the arm and was deemed 'unpredictable'. Correction chain taught him respect and he's safe to walk in public. The other was a supposed DA dog that was a screaming fit on a lead. One session with a correction chain he walked past other dogs without lunging out to grab them. Both were on a one way street as they could supposedly not be safely walked or controlled.

As for the sentence highlighted not making sense, how not? I get quite a few dogs that have been recommended to be euthanised because R+ only has not fixed them and hence been forever deemed a liability/unfixable. It's why I call my dog school Last Chance Ranch, we take in anyone and we don't give up.

As for being raised with an owner with a basic understanding of canine behavior, that's a tad arrogent. Not all dogs get a good start, not all dogs can be trained in one cookie cutter method either. Rescue dogs need to be retrained however it takes to give them a good chance of finding or retaining a home.

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

Yes I do. My original point was in the lines of when the dog is out on the hunt, to avoid snakes when out of range of the handler. I teach detection in my classes with both food and through drive.

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.

So how would you solve it then?

[Aidan3]

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.

So how would you solve it then?

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that having an excited dog that is out of sight should not be a unique set of problems that requires -R because +R can't effectively deal with it. Trainers who are skilled in +R do not see either of those scenarios and think "we'll have to use an e-collar because there's no way we can work this out using +R". We do these things with far less biddable, and far more "hard-wired" animals than dogs.

[megan_]

I liken it to an electric fence, when you touch one does it do you any damage - no it doesn't, the e-collars and others work exactly the same way, no damage just a 'oh shit it's on, I won't do that again', most animals will react the same way.

Like most analogies, you have to be careful how far you can take them. An electric fence has a clear contingency, the animal [usually] knows exactly what produced the shock and thus, how to avoid it in future. There are endless studies of what happens when the animal doesn't figure out quickly how to avoid the shock; and those symptoms range from transient distress to chronic anxiety and even depression.

When we're talking about a bark collar, or a remote collar used to train something with a very clear contingency (e.g kitchen counter surfing), the risk is low provided the trainer has good timing (and with an e-collar, you're marking not only the onset of response but the cessation of the response). Once you start to use the collar in more complex scenarios, the risks increase.

The risk of physical damage from the collar is negligible whether it's a 600kg horse or a 10kg dog, unless you leave it on for too long. I don't know if there has ever been a confirmed case where a collar has malfunctioned and caused electrical burns, the images I've seen have been of necrotic lesions which are not caused by shock.

I think the bolded bit is often underplayed. We assume that the dog knows what it did to get the shock - we assume that our timing is correct too.

I clicker train and I'm a more advanced trainer than most and yet I still get timing wrong and forget to generalise (so the dog associates the click - or in this case the shock - with something it shouldn't). For example, dog barks when sitting - did he get the zap for sitting on for barking? He needs to be zapped from many different positions to generalise "the only common theme here is the barking".

We also need to remember that dogs are individuals. The other day my smoke alarm went off and distressed my dogs - they have sensitive hearing so it is understandable. Over one month later, ANY beeping noise (even the faint beep from my hair straightener) send Lucy panicking under the bed. She now associates me getting ready in the morning with the beep and hides after breakfast and our walk (ie she doesn't even need to hear the beep to get stressed). It would be a very cold day in hell before I put an electric collar on her. I'm not saying all dogs would react badly, but we can't make blanket statements that they are okay for all dogs.

[megan_]

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.

"Positive only" trainers never only train in R+. You always have P- when you deny a reward. Who has ever said they train with R+ only? Any one who thinks positive-only training is all kittens-and-rainbows needs to read Susan' Garrett's Ruff Love - that is one tough program. I'm not sure I could follow it to the letter-of-the-law unless the dog was a total nutcase.

I try to limit P+, mainly because I don't need it, I can do most things without it and I have sensitive dogs. Denial of a reward is normally enough to spur them on to better things. I've most probably used it accidentally many times in the past when I've pulled them away from something and given them an incorrect correction (eg from an in-your-face-dog when mine haven't done anything wrong). They cope with this fine though, but I should have rewarded my fearful girl for staying calm instead, rather than send her the message of "bad things are happening". Anyhow, that is all OT.

Personally, I don't have a problem with e-collars if BEFORE someone buys it, they are required to see a licenced trainer for a certain number of sessions (including theory before they put it on their dog). The dogs temperament needs to be assessed before purchase too. I'm not comfortable that these devices are sold over the net to any old yob.

Edited August 6, 2013 by megan_

[mita]

I can't find any research that supports the use of e-collars. The comparison studies tend to conclude that rewards training is more successful & doesn't have the adverse physiological responses of e-collars.

No one can give me an answer if there's any case for their use with an individual dog who's resistant to high standard rewards training. Or even if there's any such dogs.

Without a case being made for their use, I can understand why bans are considered.

http://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2013/06/the-end-for-shock-collars.html

Edited August 6, 2013 by mita

[huski]

"Positive only" trainers never only train in R+. You always have P- when you deny a reward. Who has ever said they train with R+ only?

Hey Megan, this is what my post was referring to;

So you believe in +R training only then??

Yes.

I have no problem with using tools like e-collars, prongs etc but most people who know me also know I train my dogs to have a very high level of motivation to work with me, training in drive is my preferred method of training, it just doesn’t suit every dog and owner who needs help training their dog.

Even if I think that ‘well I could train that dog with x method easily’ the only thing that is really important is what method can the owners use to get the results they need.

[JulesP]

Lets see, bring out your dogs and Huski can bring out hers. Wonder whose will be better.....

What a strange thing to say. What are you assuming here?

You don't even know how I train my dogs or what they do.

[megan_]

and the dog needs to be able to cope with the training method too, but I think we agree on that. I wonder if there have been any studies that measure cortisol levels (they increase when stressed and have a permanent impact on health if they are too high too often). It would be interesting to know both levels when zapped and the time that it takes for them to recover to normal. That would be an independent way of measuring the true stress that a dog is under (as opposed to "I touched it and I was fine" line, which tells us nothing about the dogs state of mind).

I still think Cosmolo's point re: the consequences of executing the training incorrectly hasn't been addressed. As I said before, I'm a pretty decent trainer (well, at least I try to be and my dogs are more well behaved than most) and I get my timing wrong. I get confuzzled. I forget to teach them to generalise. Surely this would happen with an ecollar too? What are the consequences for the dog when this happens? Is it worth the risk? For a dog that comes into constant contact with snakes I might say yes, but most dogs don't.

BCNut needs to read up on the quadrants!

Edited August 6, 2013 by megan_

[megan_]

Lets see, bring out your dogs and Huski can bring out hers. Wonder whose will be better.....

What a strange thing to say. What are you assuming here?

You don't even know how I train my dogs or what they do.

...and I don't think Wiz is trained with an ecollar either? And she's a w/l mal.

[mita]

I wonder if there have been any studies that measure cortisol levels (they increase when stressed and have a permanent impact on health if they are too high too often).

I've just read them in order to reach some conclusion about e-collars.

[Cosmolo]

I don't understand the argument of "when used correctly X technique is great". What is the likelihood of X technique being used correctly and what happens to the dog (ie- negative fallout) when it is used incorrectly are far greater considerations. I realise i'm repeating what i said earlier but i think it's important.

If someone can't time a reward i certainly won't give them a tool that requires exceptional timing.

I made a mistake a number of years ago where i was doing sessions with someone with their dog and an e collar. The dog was still on a long line and learning what the sensation meant etc with direction/ guidance from the handler. They were told not to take the dog off the long line in between training sessions. One day they did and the dog started running down a jetty towards a boat. The owners panicked and their timing was poor as a result. In 2 repetitions they taught this dog to run to the boat, the opposite of what they wanted. It was then a stressful experience for that dog when we had to undo this. Not fair on the dog at all.

I am now extraordinarily careful about recommending e collars to people- i find classical conditioning exercises yield just as good a result in MOST cases. The only issue I have had with R+ training in this way is where the number of CC repetitions required exceeds what is possible/ practical for a given situation.

[BlackJaq]

I think some people forget that what works for their dog (it seems to be a lot of BC people in this thread) does not necessarily work for all dogs....... Not every dog will turn itself inside out just to please you, even if there are treats involved.

And if you cannot teach the owner to use whatever method you prefer or your method does not work as expected, then what? Call it a lost cause and PTS? Even if someone else's method could work perfectly for this dog?

Edited August 6, 2013 by BlackJaq

[raineth]

and the dog needs to be able to cope with the training method too, but I think we agree on that. I wonder if there have been any studies that measure cortisol levels (they increase when stressed and have a permanent impact on health if they are too high too often). It would be interesting to know both levels when zapped and the time that it takes for them to recover to normal. That would be an independent way of measuring the true stress that a dog is under (as opposed to "I touched it and I was fine" line, which tells us nothing about the dogs state of mind).

I still think Cosmolo's point re: the consequences of executing the training incorrectly hasn't been addressed. As I said before, I'm a pretty decent trainer (well, at least I try to be and my dogs are more well behaved than most) and I get my timing wrong. I get confuzzled. I forget to teach them to generalise. Surely this would happen with an ecollar too? What are the consequences for the dog when this happens? Is it worth the risk? For a dog that comes into constant contact with snakes I might say yes, but most dogs don't.

BCNut needs to read up on the quadrants!

that's what I was trying to get across, but not very well. There is consequences when timing is poor. I have dog who showed how bad the consequences can be when the timing of punishments is badly done.

It does worry me that people could cause a lot of damage by clumsy use of this tool. It would worry me if this tool became more widely used because of how often I see the misuse of other tools. It really seems to me like a lot of dog-related tools are used poorly (I know I've seen people give corrections with head collars etc) so I don't see why this tool wouldn't also be misused whether ignorantly or deliberately.

[JulesP]

I think some people forget that what works for their dog (it seems to be a lot of BC people in this thread) does not necessarily work for all dogs....... Not every dog will turn itself inside out just to please you, even if there are treats involved.

And if you cannot teach the owner to use whatever method you prefer or your method does not work as expected, then what? Call it a lost cause and PTS? Even if someone else's method could work perfectly for this dog?

Are you assuming all the BC owners in this thread have only trained BCs? I was an instructor for 5 years so have trained quite a lot of dogs, well the dog's owners.

Fairly sure this BC owner did say right back on page one that they would use a e-collar in the manner that the OP suggested using it.

[mita]

I

I am now extraordinarily careful about recommending e collars to people- i find classical conditioning exercises yield just as good a result in MOST cases.

It seems, then, that you can answer my question. Are there dogs that do not respond to high standard rewards training (as in classic conditioning)? What's different about them that needs something which raises cortisol levels & increases muscle tension?

Are there any studies that have identified such a group of dogs?

If answers exist they'd make a case for e-collars. Which is what I can't presently find.

Edited August 6, 2013 by mita

[Cosmolo]

I am not a BC person and aside from my experience training clients dogs I have 5 of my own that are all different. 2 are herding mixes, 2 bull breeds and one terrier. The one with the best recall is the terrier who was taught using classical conditioning- he is the first of my own that i used this method with and it has been very successful. We do maintain a high level of reinforcement though in order to maintain the behaviour.

This is another consideration- many people are not willing to maintain a certain level of reinforcement- they want to 'wean off rewards' etc. For dogs who find certain behaviours difficult, they will require a higher rate of R to be maintained in order to maintain the behaviour at that level. There is nothing wrong with this. Training is never finished and that is okay.

Some (talking generally here) seem to think you have to get to a point where you don't have to reinforce the dog- this is simply not the case. Behaviour that is not reinforced is subject to extinction procedures- ie, it will stop. Reinforcement history and rates of reinforcement should be addressed FIRST before reaching for an e collar or similar.

If an e collar is required to create a particular behaviour, it should be used to then allow you to create the reinforcement history required to maintain the behaviour without the e collar. (I am NOT talking about working dogs). One of my dogs adopted as an adult would NEVER have become reliable off lead without an e collar due to a number of issues she had. We made the decision to use the e collar to create the behaviour of coming to us but then worked hard to build her reinforcement history. Her recall is pretty great now and she hasn't had an e collar on in years- it's the reinforcement history that has maintained the behaviour, not the e collar.

[Tazar]

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.

WOW....... 'result in the next step in the aggression continuum being taken'.... not sure where you have been hanging out or what you did to dogs when you used an e collar, check chain, etc to come to the THAT conclusion.

'Sometimes it only takes one exposure'.... that is the whole point of aversion training, you only need to do it a minimal amount of times and bingo....dog avoids snakes all together. The result of that is a dog who does not endure horrendous pain, suffering and maybe even lives.

But hey, you obviously would rather use your +R only .... other people want to do everything they can to prevent that.... who is more cruel or inhumane......

Edited for clarification purpose.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Tazar

[lovemesideways]

Lets see, bring out your dogs and Huski can bring out hers. Wonder whose will be better.....

What a strange thing to say. What are you assuming here?

You don't even know how I train my dogs or what they do.

I am assuming that you made a very rude and snarky comment regarding whether or not Huski is a dog trainer,

I wasn't aware that you were actually a trainer.

You obviously wouldn't make such a rude comment, unless you're just a supreme trainer yourself. So my comment suggested that, since you're obviously so talented, perhaps you and Huski can both bring out your dogs and we will see whose performs better.

Or perhaps, maybe you shouldn't make rude comments unless you can back it up with something?