Memorandum submitted by Jennifer Dobson
USE OF ELECTRONIC TRAINING COLLARS FOR DOGS
SUMMARY
1. Electronic training collars (e-collars)
are an irreplaceable last-resort measure when resolving certain
canine behavioural problems, particularly problems that only occur
off-lead and especially with some highly self-motivated dogs.
2. These situations would normally already
have negative welfare, safety and legal considerations for the
dog or others, eg if the dog were aggressive, or could not be
effectively controlled when loose, thus allowing inappropriate
chasing, running into traffic, knocking people over etc.
3. E-collars are not appropriate or necessary
for most dogs, or for routine obedience training, not least because
they require a certain level of expertise in the assessment of
suitable cases and actual use of the product, to ensure that problems
are resolved, not caused.
4. Some dogs will not respond to positive
reinforcement, a powerful strengthener of required behaviour,
unless the various self-reward factors of the inappropriate behaviour
are first countered by suitable negative consequences.
5. Not all dogs are equally manageable.
For a few, e-collars, as part of an overall behaviour modification
program, can be the only way to achieve safe, effective control,
especially off-lead.
6. To assess welfare accurately, all benefits
and losses in the equation, for the dog and others, need to be
evaluated against each other. Eg momentary discomfort for the
dog balanced against its being a continuing danger to itself or
others, of its being frustrated on a lead without free exercise,
or of legal proceedings resulting from its being aggressively
or dangerously out of control.
7. Most dogs require very little active
stimulation of the collar, once initial training has been undertaken.
8. Spray collars do not always provide an
effective alternative to e-collars.
9. Anyone inclined to abuse a dog can do
so without using an e-collar.
10. Banning could increase abuse, should
someone be determined to use an e-collar illegally, but be denied
legal access to those with expertise in proper use of such products
for behavioural modification, and who could otherwise have provided
help.
11. Banning e-collars could cause less humane
and more injurious methods to be used instead.
12. To very briefly state my position I
am an Animal Behaviour Consultant of 20 years professional experience.
I also have a 1st class Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in
Applied Animal Science.
13. As part of my work I use electronic
remote training collars as a last resort in suitable, individually
assessed cases, when all else has failed, and when the welfare,
safety and/or legal issues merit it.
14. My interest in opposing a ban is that
this would compromise my ability to be able to effectively resolve
this small but significant fraction of my caseload.
15. Cases might typically include those
where a dog is well behaved when aware of the physical constraint
of a lead but will capitalise on off-lead opportunities, getting
into situations that would be potentially or actually dangerous,
either for itself or others. This might include aggression and/or
inappropriate chasing eg joggers, cyclists, motor traffic or other
animals, including attacking other dogs and frightening ridden
horses etc.
16. I might also use a remote collar if
a dog had a long established off-lead re-call problem that did
not respond to other measures. These dogs can run out of sight
in a few seconds, possibly not reappearing for hours, after having
hazardously crossed busy roads, or got into other trouble, before
returning home.
17. I must emphasise that I am not in favour
of using e-collars for routine training, as this is unnecessary
and there are other, far more appropriate ways to achieve this.
18. I would also stress that in the vast
majority of cases, even with the problems exemplified above, it
is usually possible to bring the problem under control without
recourse to e-collars.
19. This is because most often behavioural
problems are due to owners not communicating effectively with
their dogs, not understanding how, when or why to use correction
or reward, not establishing sound leadership and not taking suitable
precautions in high risk situations. Accordingly, effectively
addressing these issues is usually sufficient to resolve most
problems.
20. The correct use of an e-collar requires
a certain level of expertise regarding canine ethology and learning
theory, together with good practical experience of timing and
techniques required for successful training, or else problems
could be exacerbated or created.
21. There is also expertise required in
choosing a level and duration of stimulation that will effectively
correct the behaviour in that dog, in a given situation, without
overwhelming the dog. Thus e-collars are not suitable or effective
as a "quick-fix" or lazy option for people who cannot
be bothered to take time to learn to train their dogs.
22. However there are some particularly
strongly self-motivated dogs with firmly established behaviour
patterns that do not respond to standard training methods. With
these dogs there can be a "Catch 22" situation.
23. They do not recognise their owners as
leaders while they can get away with non-compliance to owner commands,
eg "Leave" or "Come" and the owners have a
major problem getting the dog to comply, due to its determined
and highly motivated behaviour and its perception that as long
as it need not comply it has the leadership role, at least in
that situation.
24. An e-collar, as part of an overall behavioural
modification program, can constructively break this circle. In
line with my own personal experience, Overall (1997) and Coleman
& Murray (2000) comment that dogs will often behave in a much
calmer manner when wearing an e-collar, without the handler actually
stimulating the collar. This is because the dog recognises that
the collar signals a means of effective control.
25. Schilder and van der Borg (2004) also
noted in their study on effects of e-collars that dogs that had
been trained with "shocks" had slightly lower ear and
tail positions than the "non-shocked" controls. Their
stated aims were to look for negative welfare impact of e-collars
on the dogs and this, together with its apparently not having
been conducted as a blind test, may have influenced their interpretation
of some results.
26. They attributed the lowered posture
to fear rather than submission, but they make this assessment
because "even in the absence of a person or a dog, dogs lower
their posture when confronted with an unexpected aversive stimulus.
This shows that lowering of the posture is not an expression of
submission per se, but certainly is connected to fear".
27. This reaction in these circumstances
however does not rule out the likelihood of lowered posture being
a submissive response to other stimuli, particularly those involving
rank sensitive situations, such as control and leadership.
28. In support of my interpretation, Bradshaw
& Nott (1995) do not differentiate between fear and submission
in terms of body language other than by degree, describing fear
as "more exaggerated . . . with cringing". Overall (1997)
suggests piloerection can help differentiate fear from submission
and piloerection was not reported in the "shocked" group.
Other authors also attribute this reported posture of lower ears
and tail and flexed limbs as submission rather than fear.
29. Likewise signals described by Schilder
and van der Borg (2004) in this paper as "stress-related"
have also been attributed to submission by other authors, eg lip-licking,
air-licking, front paw-lifting, whining, whimpering (Coren 2001,
Fox 1975, Holmes 1998, Bradshaw & Nott 1995 ) shaking and
sniffing (Aloff 2002).
30. The Kennel Club, I believe, submitted
this same paper by Schilder and van der Borg to DEFRA to support
the Kennel Club's aim to campaign for a ban on the use of e-collars.
This is rather surprising, given that this paper itself does not
support such a ban. Rather they accept that there are appropriate
uses for remote trainers with one of their conclusions being "save
it for therapeutic applications, such as for suppressing hunting
and killing sheep"
31. In urban environments chasing, and sometimes
attacking small dogs, cars, livestock, joggers or cyclists etc
can be the behavioural equivalent of sheep-chasing. Many experienced
trainers, owners and other scientific writers, eg Coleman and
Murray (2000), Tortura (1982,1984) and Overall (1997) support
the use of e-collars as effective and humane for these types of
problems, under certain specific criteria which are much the same
as those I use myself and have stated above.
32. Some of those advocating a total ban
on e-collars consider that dogs can be trained to exhibit a substitute
behaviour, instead of the problem-response, primarily by use of
positive reinforcement, eg Bailey (2003), Bowen (2003) and Casey
(2004).
33. This unfortunately does not take into
account that most of the potentially dangerous problems that might
justify use of an e-collar have a very considerable self-reward
factor. Off-lead running and not re-calling on command for example
has rewards of general self-determination, exploratory opportunities
and opportunity for uncontrolled physical activities and social
interactions, which may not always be benign.
34. Even when the intent is benign, the
behaviour can still have dangerous consequences such as a dog
exuberantly running into the road and causing an accident, or
knocking someone over, possibly causing fear or severe injury,
eg were someone to fall badly on a hard surface.
35. Apart from these immediate welfare and
safety concerns, legal implications could also have negative effects
on the welfare of owners, dogs and others, caused by the stress
of legal procedures, possible seizure and/or destruction of the
dog and financial burdens associated with legal proceedings.
36. Conversely, if such dogs are never allowed
off-lead, this in itself can lead to further behavioural problems,
including aggression, that are related to boredom, excess energy
and frustration. (Davey 1981, Dushkin 1980, Evans 1988, Fox 1975,
Lockwood 1995, Rogerson 1999). Barrier-frustration can also result
in aggression (Campbell 1992) and lead restraint will create barrier-
frustration in some dogs (Aloff 2002).
37. Bailey (1995) states "the effectiveness
of a correction lies in the element of surprise . . . discipline
should be immediate, startling, effective and should be over in
seconds".
38. Furthermore, to be effective and to
be understood by the dog, handler feedback such as correction
or reward should happen at the time that the behaviour occurs.
The earliest opportunity for this is when the dog first thinks
about doing something, and the latest opportunity is just before
it has completed it (Cree 1991).
39. Although Bailey (2003) is herself opposed
to use of e-collars, there are some circumstances when an e-collar
can be the only way to fulfil Bailey and Cree's criteria. Eg when
some or all of the following apply:- the dog is off lead, travelling
at speed, is some distance away and/or very intensely focused
on and motivated by some highly self-rewarding activity.
40. When involved in chasing and/or aggression
in particular, or whilst tracking in some scent-dominated breeds,
distracting them or interrupting this behaviour can be extremely
difficult on both a physical and a psychological level.
41. Hence good anticipation and being able
to read the dog's intention can be highly effective. When correction
is required to prevent self-stimulatory problems such as aggression
or chasing, anticipation can also prevent increased arousal levels,
making it easier to communicate with the dog and preventing physiological
self-reward via adrenaline effects. It also prevents the physical
and psychological self-rewards, invariably inherent when participating
in, or when succeeding to some degree with the undesirable behaviour.
42. Schilder & van der Borg (2004) together
with Coleman & Murray (2000) acknowledge that some dogs are
harder to train/control than others and that "softer"
punishments do not have the desired effect with a more "forceful"
or determined type of dog.
43. E-collars can be essential to resolve
problems in these "harder" dogs, as "back-up"
for familiar commands that the dog knowingly chooses to ignore
in favour of continuing the problem behaviour, eg to reinforce
"Leave/Come" if the dog shows signs of aggressive chasing.
44. In this way the dog always retains the
option to avoid any correction, merely by following the known
command, thus training remains fair and consistent and therefore
the dog is not made anxious or fearful.
45. Behavioural modification is most effective
if an unwanted response, eg aggressive chasing, can be replaced
with another competing and incompatible response, such as prompt
orientation towards the owner, a method known as counter-conditioning
(Davey 1981, Mackintosh 1975), or response substitution (Mugford
1992).
46. However with confirmed problem-dogs,
where owners or trainers have tried this approach using a positive
reinforcement solution alone to resolve the problem, without any
negative penalty, this can have failed because, in the dog's perception,
continuing with the unwanted behaviour is more rewarding than
anything the owner can offer by way of "compensation"
to try to encourage the dog to abandon its originally planned
course of action.
47. Introducing a two step program of an
appropriate and well-timed negative penalty at an effective level
to make the chase behaviour less rewarding, gives a chance to
devalue the unwanted behavioural response, whilst also making
the alternative, required response even more rewarding by comparison.
48. E-collars can provide the necessary
stimulus to achieve step one in situations where nothing else
can. This is also where positive reinforcement is equally invaluable
in achieving step two and strengthening the required, incompatible,
alternative response.
49. Commonly used arguments against e-collars
generally state these collars to be unnecessary, claiming that
"other methods" can be used instead. To reiterate, this
is the last resort measure, to be considered when other "softer"
methods have failed eg rank restructuring, training discs, noise
aversion, clickers and other positive reinforcement for counter
conditioning, desensitisation, trailing lines etc.
50. Spray collars are the only other real
option for remote training, but in my personal experience spray
collars have proven effective for less than a third of dogs in
the cases where I might otherwise consider an e-collar. In some
cases they were only effective for a couple of days, until the
dog was no longer surprised by it.
51. If the dog is not concerned about the
sudden hiss, the taste, the aerosol spray or the scent, the spray
collar will not be effective as a distraction, an interruption
or as an aversive stimulus.
52. However, I no longer recommend these
devices because my recent experience of the re-launched Masterplus
h collar was that the mechanics of the collar were proving very
unreliable and feedback from the wholesalers suggested I was not
alone in this finding. Failure to function would happen with absolutely
no prior warning.
53. Using an unreliable remote collar, of
any type, is worse than not using one at all, as it gives a misplaced
sense of security.
54. Masterplus h has a maximum range of
about 200m whereas high quality e-collars can commonly have a
range of half a mile or more, very important with a fast moving,
chasing or non re-call dog.
55. Masterplus h has three durations of
spray but the reservoir very quickly empties on the sustained
spray. E-collars can have up to 16 levels of electrical stimulation,
plus vibration or auditory stimulation only, additionally duration
of stimulation can be varied.
56. All these factors allow e-collars to
be finely tuned to suit the individual dog and the situation.
E-collars work on long-life or rechargeable low-voltage batteries
(typically under 9 volts in total).
57. Negative welfare issues are frequently
cited by those wishing to see e-collars banned. This view disregards
the positive welfare gains as, when used appropriately, there
are invariably serious negative welfare issues already present,
prior to the decision being made to use an e-collar to help resolve
a problem.
58. As recognised in the draft bill, "suffering"
and "welfare" cannot be properly assessed in isolation,
but have to be considered as a benefits-and-losses balance of
all the factors involved, including proportionality.
59. For a full picture of the dog's welfare,
and the welfare of others, the options of not using an e-collar
also need to be considered, given that existing negative welfare,
safety and legal issues already preclude doing nothing about the
problem:
60. To never allow the dog off-lead. This
would not be a solution for a dog strong enough to pull its owner
over or to pull its lead loose.
61. To never allow the dog out of the home.
This (as with option 1 above) could seriously jeopardise the dog's
welfare and behaviour, as discussed earlier, were it to become
bored and frustrated. These factors may also encourage the dog
to try to escape.
62. To euthanase the dog. As recognised
in the Draft Bill, there would be no direct suffering for the
dog either with the procedure or the consequence of humane euthanasia.
However on the benefits-and-losses basis, it would rightly be
extremely difficult to justify this course, particularly with
an unruly but not inherently aggressive dog, and especially when
the problem could possibly be resolved by an electronic stimulation
lasting a fraction of a second that has not been evidenced to
cause physical damage (Klein 2000).
63. As Schilder and van der Borg (2004)
state "We have not proven that the long-term welfare of the
shocked dogs was hampered . . ."; and they also accept that
the "differences (in terms of lowered posture) that we found
between shocked and control dogs were small . . .".
64. If people wish to deliberately abuse
their dogs, this can be easily achieved with cheaper, more easily
obtained implements, or by neglect, as has been proven in numerous
cruelty cases of dog-abuse.
65. Even without a specific ban on e-collars
there would still be a provision within the new Act to successfully
prosecute anyone misusing this equipment.
66. Indeed banning could itself compromise
welfare if it meant outdated physically injurious and violent
punishments were employed instead, eg beating, hanging or kicking
the dog.
67. Banning could also increase abuse, should
someone be determined to use an e-collar illegally, by denying
legal access to those with expertise in proper use of these products
for behavioural modification, who could otherwise have provided
help.
REFERENCES
Aloff, B (2002) Aggression in Dogs. Dogwise
Wenatchee USA.
Bowen, J (2003) Personal presentation to DEFRA,
6th January. Page St, London.
Bailey, G (2003) Personal presentation to DEFRA,
6th January. Page St, London.
Bradshaw, J.W.S, Nott H. M.R. (1995): Social
and Communication Behaviour of Companion Dogs. Chapter 8;
The Ethology and Epidemiology Of Canine Aggression. Editor Serpell
1995, J. S. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Campbell, W.E (1992) Behavior Problems in
Dogs 2nd Ed. American Veterinary Publications. California.
Casey, R (2004) Communication at All party Animal
Welfare Committee Meeting. Houses of Parliament 13.01.04.
Coleman, T, Murray, R. (2000) Collar mounted
electronic devices for behaviour modification in dogs. Urban
Animal Management Conference proceedings. Accessed on line
9.3.2003 http://www.ava.com.au/content/confer/uam/proc00/murray.htm
Coren, S (2001) How to Speak Dog. Simon
& Schuster. New York, London
Cree, J (1991) Your Problem Dog. Pelham
Books. London
Davey, G. (1981) Animal Learning and Conditioning.
Macmillan Press Ltd. London
Dushkin, D.A. (Editor), (1970) Psychology
Today. Communications, Research, Machines, Inc. California,
USA.
Evans, J.M. (1988) The Evans Guide For Counselling
Dog Owners. Howell Book House Inc. New York.
Fox, M.W. (1975) Understanding Your Dog.
Book Club Associates. London.
Holmes, J, Holmes, M (1998) Reading the Dog's
Mind. Howell House Books New York USA.
Klein, D. (2000) Elektrogerate: Grundlagen,
Wirkungen und mogliche Gefahren im Hinblick auf die Anwendung
in der Hundeausbildung. Der Gebrauchsund 1, 38-48 Cited
in Schilder, M.B.H & van der Borg, J.A.M (2004).
Lockwood, R. (1995): The Domestic Dog: Its
Evolution, Behaviour And Interactions with People. Chapter
9; The Ethology and Epidemiology Of Canine Aggression. Editor
Serpell 1995, J. S. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Mugford, R. (1992) Dog Training the Mugford
Way. Hutchinson/Stanley Paul London.
Overall, K.L (1997) Clinical Behavioural
Medicine for Small Animals. Mosby Philadelphia.
Rogerson, J. (1999) Unpublished Lecture Notes;
Dunsmore Kennels (on behalf of the Dobermann Club) Presents
an Audience with John Rogerson and Roy Hunter 9.30a.m to 5.30
p.m. 3.10.99 at Sports Connexion. Ryton-on-Dunsmore. Warks.
Schilder, M.B.H & van der Borg, J.A.M (2004)
Training Dogs with the help of the Shock Collar:short and long
term Behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
85 319-334
Tortura, D.F (1982) Understanding Electronic
Dog Training, Part 1 Canine Practise 9 17-2 (cited in Schilder
& van der Borg 2004)
Tortura, D.F (1984) Safety training: the elimination
of avoidance motivated aggression in dogs Aust Vet Pract 14(2)
70-74 (cited in Schilder & van der Borg 2004).
19 August 2004
| 
