Ecollars

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I've some questions about this study but it's the first scientific study I know of:

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0102722

[Blackdawgs]

There have been other "scientific" studies. So far, i have only read the abstract of this study, but I think that it is very difficult to do this type of study well. In the end, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and if the owner is happy with the end results, that is all that matters (because the dog seldom has a say).

 

I do think that it is a grave mistake to put these devices in the hands of the average pet dog owner who probably lacks the timing and observational skills needed to use these devices fairly and humanely (depending on the level of "stim").

 

Unfortunately, there is no scientific measure of "fair", so things like cortisol and yawns are measured. I work in the clinical trials realm and the choice of the best endpoint(s) is often very difficult, but is vital to the success of the study.

[CMP]

Wow. That was quite a read. At the end of it all, scientific studies can not address the ethical/moral aspect of e-collar use - which seems to be more important (in terms of what aspect people tend to discuss about this topic) than whether they work.

 

Not to whip out the million mile wide paintbrush, but execution works on murderers. The debate over e-collars rarley seems to touch on whether they work or not :/

 

I concluded, from a skimmish read, that we don't know a whole lot more at the end of it than we did before it - they work for some people on some dogs, seem to have acceptable short term effects when used properly and the user's set of mind is as important with an e-collar as it is with less extreme methods.

 

But an interesting read, nonetheless. Thanks for the link.

[medic09]

Since the thread is about the study, I won't say anything about my own experience or observation with electronic collars.

 

My experience in reading research is mostly with healthcare clinical studies. Reading this, I noted two things right off:

 

1. The use of the loaded term 'welfare consequences' in the title. This presumably says something about what the authors want the reader to think. There's a reason many good research papers have unwieldy titles. The authors do that to keep things as neutral as possible, and allow the readers to interpret for themselves. I might have substituted something like 'Observation of Behavioral and Physiological Changes...' for 'Welfare consequences'; but that wouldn't nudge the reader into thinking anything in particular at my suggestion.

 

2. This is a small study. A study population of 63 in healthcare and clinical trials would be a feasibility study; not something conclusive. So I am inclined to think the same about this. The results are interesting, and warrant further consideration; but a study this size isn't usually big enough to compel significant changes in thinking or practice one way or the other.

[d112358]

I'm a little disappointed by the measure of reliable recall being owner satisfaction. It wouldn't be hard to set up an objective test scored by impartial observers.

[juliepoudrier]

I did read the entire study and I found their conclusions interesting, given that most of their discussion noted minor (or not significant) differences between the study groups.

 

That said, I think it's important to note that the e-collar trainers apparently got the same result whether or not they used the e-collar. That would argue against any real need for an e-collar, and would argue for the fact that the abilities of the person doing the training are what is most important. Another important conclusion (to me, anyway) was the fact that the owners themselves admitted to being less comfortable training with an e-collar, and that the trainers used were people who were recommended by the e-collar manufacturers and so could be presumed to be the best of the best when it comes to using an e-collar, which leads to the question of whether the average pet owner could get the same results with the same apparent minimal stress to the dog.

 

They did mention the limitations of the study, including population size, but I find it curious that they conclude that e-collar training causes stress when it seemed as if none (or almost none) of their actual statistical results showed significant differences between the groups (except for groups A and B interacting with their environment less than Group C, the latter being the dogs trained with a reward-based method). This effect would say to me that the *trainer* had some effect on the dog unconnected to the use of an e-collar, since the trainers in Groups A and B were the same people. That is, the trainers themselves were having some effect on the dog no matter whether a training device was used that the trainers in Group C did not have on a dog.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

J.

[Lizabeth]

Personally I have never been a fan on using them with my own dogs, I do know people who use them, I do know that they do see that it helps them. To me it is a matter of preference, some do some don't. I will admit that I came very very close to using a friends collar with Gidget, I was at my wits end with her and looked at it as a last resort. I did however manage to find an alternative to using the device. I am quite happy with the decisions that I made. Again if someone wishes to use them on their own dog, that is their choice, would I let someone put one on my dog? No I would not. I would rather seek out other means to correct a situation when and if at all possible.

 

I do know a dog that has been trained with one, he is an awesome dog who sort of has some odd quirks, it was the only way that his people could get his attention. He is a great dog, he runs around with his collar on him being such a good boy, if it is removed he is not always such a good boy. Funny thing is he has no clue that the collar is not even turned on lol.

[GentleLake]

I haven't read all these studies, and given the name of the website I wouldn't expect them to put shock collars in a good light, but FWIW, here they are: http://banshockcollars.ca/studies.php#a2

 

Another article: http://eileenndogs.hubpages.com/hub/collars-shock

 

An editorial from the Journal of Veterinary Behavior: http://k9behavioralgenetics.net/resources/Articles/Why%20electric%20shock%20is%20not%20behavior%20modification.pdf

 

Take them or leave them, whatever.

 

Please just don't shoot the messenger.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Although I think there are times when ecollar use is indicated,the potential for abuse is so great I don't think they should be available without a state license. After spending some time with ecollar trained dogs and their trainers, I have some questions about their long term effect. I don't think they should be used to train sheepdog work.

 

The original study has too small a population, doesn't distinguish between breeds and "owner satisfaction" isn't helpful. Many owners would be satisfied their dogs were taken seriously enough to be part of any test save, perhaps, a cookoff.

 

I do wish scientists would deem dogs worth their best efforts!

 

Dr. Overall purports to do so in the 3rd study Roxanne cited. But. Dr Overall is a "Extreme Positive" (I hope that's a satisfactory term) advocate (She politics. I don't know if she trains) and cites and derides (among other) Mr. Castle and Mr. Hassen as offering scientific arguments for their use of ecollars. Both men operate profitable ecollar schools, give seminars and make a fine living. Neither is a scientist nor has either done one (1) scientific experiment.

 

So: opinion meets opinion. No gain, some shame.

 

One of the things science is not is annotated name calling.

 

I wouldn't let any of them walk my dog.

 

Donald McCaig

[Blackdawgs]

Although "owner satisfaction" is not a wonderful scientific endpoint, in the real world, owner satisication is all that matters. No one wants to live with a dog that they are not happy with or is a pain in the ass.

 

In my opinion, the most valid test of a dog's training is some sort of objectively judged dog sport whether that be sheep/cattle dogging, agility, obedience, schutzhund, whatever--as long as off leash control in a distracting environment is part of the test. For pet dogs, the AKC CD (actually the UKC equivelent is harder), is just as good as anything else.

 

Let the dogs run "naked" (collarless as they do in most agility venues) and see how they do.

[juliepoudrier]

I'll just point out, again, that the e-collar trainers got the same results when they trained Group B without e-collars. Says to me that it's more about the trainer than the device. That is, if the trainer got the same results with the e-collar as without it then why even bother with it? Especially given the risk of abuse when in the hands of the non-experts out there.

 

If it weren't likely to be abusive, I'd be curious what a study would show if the e-collar were given to an average trainer who has never used one before and then the average person trained with the collar under the direction of the expert. I bet the results would be different (maybe not the end result, but the stress, etc., to the dog during training).

 

J.

[GentleLake]

Can't seem to use the quote function.

 

Julie wrote: "I find it curious that they conclude that e-collar training causes stress when it seemed as if none (or almost none) of their actual statistical results showed significant differences between the groups (except for groups A and B interacting with their environment less than Group C, the latter being the dogs trained with a reward-based method)."

 

I agree with her that at least to some extent the trainer's approach must have something to do with the results, especially if groups A and B didn't show a lot of difference. I suspect those trainers used other punitive methods whether they were using shock collars or not.

 

I especially find the observation interesting about the dogs trained using reward-based methods were interacting more with their environments. Personally, I find this a huge incentive to stick with the positive training I embrace. I don't want dogs who are too shut down to enjoy life and interact with the world around them; I want dogs who are confident, curious and willingly engage with me and their environments.

 

It's a much more satisfying way to be with my dogs, IMO.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

A highly skilled friend (OTCH's on Chows) who was a proponent of ecollars for pet dog training (and most of the dogs in her board and train wear them) has stopped training with them because (my paraphrase): "Once they're out of the ecollar bubble - what they've been trained for - they're lost."

 

Like Roxanne, "I want dogs who are confident, curious and willingly engage with me and their environments."

 

Many non-ecollar training regimens can achieve that goal. It's won't happen when the trainer is afraid of his/her dog and insists on absolute safety and absolute control.

 

Donald McCaog

[TEC]

I just now stepped out on the deck to call my dog from the fenceline in our backyard where she was engaging in the self-reinforcing behavior of barking at who knows what -- squirrels, birds, large wildlife, dogs, or sinister person(s). She turned and came to the door happily, willingly, promptly and almost any other positive "...ly" you can think of. Never an ecollar used, and hardly ever any food rewarded.

 

I am not sure why she comes quite some distance back from the fence into the house so well, but she has a happy smile when she arrives, and I give her a big greeting. That's my experience. -- TEC

[geonni banner]

I especially find the observation interesting about the dogs trained using reward-based methods were interacting more with their environments. Personally, I find this a huge incentive to stick with the positive training I embrace. I don't want dogs who are too shut down to enjoy life and interact with the world around them; I want dogs who are confident, curious and willingly engage with me and their environments.

While I have never used an e-collar, and probably never would - at least not without extensive training - I think it is a mistake to assume that dogs who are not strongly motivated to "interact with their environments" are shut down. (And also a mistake to assume they are shut down from being trained with an e-collar.) They may simply be more focused on the owner.

 

I know, and have owned dogs that were focused almost exclusively on their owner and interacting with them. None of these dogs were trained with an e-collar. Mine at least, was never abused. She was a Doberman Pinscher who lived to work. The environment was of little interest to her. She wasn't encouraged to be that way, she just was.

 

I know people like that too.

[GentleLake]

The problem is, as I've read previously, the dogs often don't really want to interact with their handlers, or they don't interact as enthusiastically or freely. The don't tend to offer new behaviors on their own (same is true of other punitive methods).

 

When I got my first border collie, what 33 years ago?, we started out doing competitive obedience. The trainer I worked with was pretty old school, lots of leash jerks and collar pops, though she also incorporated food rewards. I decided I didn't like the leash jerks and collar pops, so I don't do a lot of that, and Mirk wasn't food motivated, so praise was his reinforcer.

 

I had 2 judges pull me aside after our ring time (that's actually a significant number because I think we only entered 4 shows, earned his CD and quit to get sheep and do herding). Both said that they were rally sorry they couldn't have given us higher scores because they just loved how much Mirk loved working with me. He loved it because I didn't punish him if he didn't do something perfectly and I swore going in that the day it wasn't fun for either one of us was the last day we ever did it.

 

Dogs who are too handler focused usually aren't the best in most working pursuits. (It's often indicative of a lack of confidence.) They need to be curious, able to think independently and to interact with their environments as well as with their handlers.

 

I have to ask, Geonni. What kind of work did your Dobie do?

[geonni banner]

I have to ask, Geonni. What kind of work did your Dobie do?

I should have been more specific. Blaise's "work" was in the pet-owner's sense of the word. Although she did do work work too. She was a fabulous guard dog who held a would-be house-breaker at the top of her back yard fence until the police arrived to take him into custody - they got here fast, but she never relinquished her hold on his leg until told to "drop it." She had no protection training.

 

She also broke a heel position to cross in front of me and seize a young pit bull, (9 mos.) who was making for my leg with intent to do mayhem on me.

 

She used to leap into 6-ft swells to fetch a retrieving dummy. The water was cold, and I would not have sent her into it, but she begged to go. And had a great time going back in about ten times.

 

I started her on tracking lessons at home, and three days into them she was enlisted by a neighbor to find a missing pet ferret that had escaped from his house. She found him in 3 minutes.

 

She did agility - not in competition - for fun.

 

Except for my cat and my Collie, she was completely indifferent - but polite - to other animals. (Except that pit bull, and gophers which she hunted and ate with great enthusiasm..) She didn't dig, chew, bark, or do any of the other things a pet usually has to be trained out of, but she was always there, always ready to learn new things and carry them out.

 

That was all her "work."

 

I guess you can tell I was pretty stuck on that dog...

 

Everything Blaise did was work - to her - she went about it with pin-point focus and determination. And she loved it. My kind of dog. If Sugarfoot had had Blaise's start in life she'd be just like her - but she's getting there!

[GentleLake]

I certainly don't want to devalue in any way the role that Blaise did for you, but the kind of "work" you describe isn't really the kind of trained work that would require a dog to be more interactive with its environment.

 

Sounds like she was a pretty special dog, and perfect for you.

[geonni banner]

I certainly don't want to devalue in any way the role that Blaise did for you, but the kind of "work" you describe isn't really the kind of trained work that would require a dog to be more interactive with its environment.

 

Sounds like she was a pretty special dog, and perfect for you.

If you want to know more about Blaise, go here:

http://pedanticmystic.blogspot.com/2014/09/remembering-blaise.html

[Maralynn]

I certainly don't want to devalue in any way the role that Blaise did for you, but the kind of "work" you describe isn't really the kind of trained work that would require a dog to be more interactive with its environment.

 

 

Can you expound on the type of work you are talking about? From my perspective, Blaise would have many characteristics that I would want in a SAR dog. The hyper focus and ability to ignore the environment can be a huge asset. The environment is peripheral noise that they tune out.

[Root Beer]

Yesterday I was sitting on the floor playing with Dean and Bandit. I had Bandit's hollee ball and his puppy Kong and I put the hollee ball on the base of the puppy Kong and held the Kong like it was a giant ice cream cone (the hollee ball was the "ice cream"). I wanted Bandit to snatch the hollee ball of the top and I was waiting for him to figure it out when Dean came up and rolled the hollee ball off at the base with the tip of his nose.

 

We were both pleased with his contribution to the game. I appreciate that kind of creativity and often use it to train new skills.

 

I wondered, though, at that moment - would a shock collar trained dog dare to offer a creative contribution like that? How would he or she know that a shock wasn't coming if I didn't like it? Even if the dog wasn't wearing the collar - in what would trust to try something like that be based?

 

Dean didn't just come up and tentatively try what he did. He came up, brimming with fun, knowing that what he did would be welcome and appreciated. Or, at worst, I would have diverted him off into something else (probably would have thrown his ball to send him away) if I really didn't want him butting in just then.

 

The risk of shocking that kind of enthusiasm to put forward the best of his or herself is not a risk I would take, regardless of the results of a scientific study.

[Blackdawgs]

Several months ago, I watched the local low "stim" pet dog shock jock fit a dog with its brand new ($$) collar for the first time and instruct the owner on its use. The owner appeared to be a college student, not dog savvy. The trainer put the dog thru its paces while the owner stood on the sidelines, watched, and listened to the trainer's running dialogue. When the dog was "tapped", the unit made a sound that I could hear. The dog was "tapped" for doing anything other than walking by the trainer's side and looking straight ahead. The dog was actually zapped (on more than one occasion) for looking at its owner.

 

i suspect that the use of ecollars in this context amounts to a non surgical lobotomy

[GentleLake]

Can you expound on the type of work you are talking about? From my perspective, Blaise would have many characteristics that I would want in a SAR dog. The hyper focus and ability to ignore the environment can be a huge asset. The environment is peripheral noise that they tune out.

 

I have no doubt that Blaise could have been trained to do many things and done them well. But I also believe that the type of training would have contributed, or conversely detracted, from the success of that training, especially since she was already very handler/owner focused.

 

SAR work requires that a dog be confident, comfortable in novel situations, willing to take initiative and work independently and willing to interact with her or his environment.

 

Ignoring distractions and focusing on the task at hand is not the same thing as not being willing (or able) to interact with the environment. The dogs who are less interactive with their environments don't make a lot of decisions on their own, try new things, and tend generally to lack confidence.

[d112358]

i suspect that the use of ecollars in this context amounts to a non surgical lobotomy

 

Your suspicions are dead on - there's research that applying random electrical shocks to a dog (with no clear criteria) can induce persistent learned helplessness (Seligman, among others).

[cwb3]

Yesterday I was sitting on the floor playing with Dean and Bandit. I had Bandit's hollee ball and his puppy Kong and I put the hollee ball on the base of the puppy Kong and held the Kong like it was a giant ice cream cone (the hollee ball was the "ice cream"). I wanted Bandit to snatch the hollee ball of the top and I was waiting for him to figure it out when Dean came up and rolled the hollee ball off at the base with the tip of his nose.

 

We were both pleased with his contribution to the game. I appreciate that kind of creativity and often use it to train new skills.

 

I wondered, though, at that moment - would a shock collar trained dog dare to offer a creative contribution like that? How would he or she know that a shock wasn't coming if I didn't like it? Even if the dog wasn't wearing the collar - in what would trust to try something like that be based?

 

Dean didn't just come up and tentatively try what he did. He came up, brimming with fun, knowing that what he did would be welcome and appreciated. Or, at worst, I would have diverted him off into something else (probably would have thrown his ball to send him away) if I really didn't want him butting in just then.

 

The risk of shocking that kind of enthusiasm to put forward the best of his or herself is not a risk I would take, regardless of the results of a scientific study.

Perhaps the answer to your question might depend upon the purpose(s) for which an e-collar was used on a particular dog. In my case I used an e-collar as a method of last resort to train a hound mix to recall in the presence of an emergency situation. In her case that is to call her off of chasing deer, fox and the like. Prior and subsequent to that training she is trained by reward on all other obedience, manners and sports stuff. She is accustomed to clicker based free and applied shaping training.

 

She happily puts her mind to a task and offers behaviors when knowing that a "game" is afoot. Significantly, she offers the same level of zeal regardless if a flat collar, e-collar or no collar is on at the time. By contrast I have observed dogs trained for obedience with e-collars who are more reticent about new situations and behaviors. I cannot presume to judge if that is a function of the collar, the breed/mix, or of other handler/dog dynamics. But I did want to point out my own limited experience relative to your question.

 

OTOH I could never even imagine placing an e-collar on my border collie. He can be clever, driven and stubborn. He can take a,hard verbal correction without shutting down. He will work tirelessly on the same thing to get it right. But I suspect the intensity of even the mildest stimulation from an e-collar would be a total,affront to his world.

 

Bottom line is I think an e-collar applied well and carefully for a specific purpose can achieve its objective on some breeds and crosses, to train a behavior or response that goes against a particular dog instinctive reaction, without necessarily dampening the dogs general enthusiasm and drive. The key might be in the specificity of what one uses a shock collar to achieve.