Showing posts with label shock collars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shock collars. Show all posts

Shock collars, Regulation, and Education on the Alternatives

Shock collars should be banned, according to a survey of the use of electronic collars to train dogs in France.

Study shows support for regulation of shock collars, but a need for more information on the alternatives
Photo: SebiTian/Shutterstock


Recently, I reported on a study by veterinary behaviourists in Europe that concluded by calling for a ban on all three types of electronic collar across Europe (remote-controlled, boundary, and bark-activated collars). Another paper by Dr. Sylvia Masson et al, published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, investigates the use of shock collars in France, and some of the results are surprising.

For one thing, they show that even amongst people who use shock collars there is a lot of support for regulating them.

But they also show a sizeable minority – even amongst people who do not use shock collars – that say they are the most effective way to resolve behaviour issues. This shows a need to get the message out that positive reinforcement is an effective way to train dogs (see seven reasons to use reward-based training methods and literature review recommends reward-based training).

The effectiveness, as reported by the electronic collar users, was not particularly high (51.1% of those who used remote-controlled collars, and 25.5% who used bark-activated collars, said it had worked and they could stop using it). As well, users of remote-controlled collars and bark-activated collars reported more abnormal behaviours in their dog than those who did not use them.

The paper concludes,
“based on this survey, it appears that in a real-life setting, ECs’ [electronic collars] ability to modify behaviors is limited. Thus, and as expected, the risks associated with their use are increased. Consequently, EC should not be used in everyday life without regulation. 
However, answers in this questionnaire show that some owners still think that EC can solve behavioral issues better than any other existing method. Considering the high use revealed by our results, a huge communication work toward the public has to be done. In the current survey, 78% of questioned owners ask for a better regulation of ECs. This seems to be a much needed and achievable goal that would restrict the access to devices (e.g. through the internet).”

Most people who used a shock collar did so after trying 2 or fewer alternatives (75%) and without taking professional advice (71.8%). 12.7% of shock collar users did not try any alternative prior to using the collar.

The most common alternatives that were tried before using the shock collar were “group training in a club” and looking on the internet. The next most common alternatives included books, advice from a veterinarian, a private trainer, and ‘none’.

People’s use of shock collars was associated with having a bigger dog (more than 40kg), the dog not being spayed or neutered, and the dog being used for protection or hunting. It is not known if the dog's sexual status is linked to behaviour issues, and/or to the owner's different treatment of the dog. The authors note that some disciplines may use electronic collars by tradition, as those who did agility or obedience training were less likely to use them.


“Based on this survey, it appears that in a real-life setting, electronic collars' ability to modify behaviors is limited"


Electronic collars were more likely to be used on dogs less than 2 years old. As well, users of electronic collars were more likely to say their dog showed excitement and aggression.

There are some interesting differences between those who did not use electronic collars and those who did. People who did not use them were less likely to have tried group training in a club, and more likely to have read dog training books or used the internet.

95.2% of those who did not use electronic collars and 77.9% of those who did thought their use should be regulated. 60% of non-users and 14% of users thought there should be an outright ban on electronic collars.

According to the electronic collar users’ ratings, although a majority (58%) said they would recommend them, in fact they were not particularly effective. The bark-activated collars, which were more often used on small dogs (weighing less than 10kg), were the least effective and had the highest rate of reported injuries (burns from the collar) at almost 11%.

But boundary collars and remote-controlled collars also were not reported to work as well as might be expected. This suggests real-life training use is not as effective as when the collars are used by trained professionals in controlled settings.

Not surprisingly, the main reason people gave for using bark-activated collars was due to barking. Boundary fences were typically used because of lack of a physical fence, but an American study found dogs escape from electronic fences at a much higher rate than from a physical fence.

The most common reason given for using a remote-controlled shock collar was for recall (coming when called). However, it’s worth noting that an experimental study using professional trainers found that positive reinforcement is just as effective as shock collars for teaching recall, but that there are risks with the use of shock collars.

The survey asked 1251 dog owners in France about their use of electronic collars. It’s important to note this is not a representative sample, so the results may not reflect the beliefs of French people as a whole. In particular, those who completed the survey were more likely than the general population to have a pedigree rather than a mixed-breed dog, and more likely to have a dog that weighs more than 10kg.

The use of shock collars in this study is much higher (26%) than found by Blackwell et al in their study of shock collar use in the UK (3.3%). Since neither is a nationally representative sample we can’t draw conclusions about the relative use of electronic collars in each country (but note that the British government recently announced a ban on two of the three types of shock collars in England).

The paper concludes that bark-activated collars and remote-controlled shock collars should be banned. In this study, few people used boundary fences, but the authors note they could also be banned as physical fences and reward-based training methods are a good alternative.

This is an interesting study that shows substantial support for the regulation of shock collars in France. At the same time, it shows there is much work to be done to teach people how to effectively train dogs and deal with behaviour problems using reward-based methods.

For the full set of results, see the paper (link below). If you’re interested in the wider research on dog training methods, my dog training research resources page has a list of articles along with places where you can read about them.

Stay up to date and subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.


Reference
Masson, S., Nigron, I., & Gaultier, E. (2018). Questionnaire Survey on The Use Of Different E-Collar Types in France in Everyday Life With A View To Providing Recommendations for Possible Future Regulations. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.004

You might also like:

The ultimate dog training tip
The ultimate dog training tip








Can dog training books be trusted?
Can dog training books be trusted?









The best dog training treats
The best dog training treats


Tips for fearful dogs
Eight tips to help fearful dogs feel safe









As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Study outlines reasons to ban electronic collars for dogs

A review of the scientific research finds there are risks to using electronic collars in dog training and says it's time for a ban.

Scientific research shows risks to using shock collars and calls for a Europe-wide ban on their use. They are often used as positive punishment for unwanted behaviour, and are worn on the dog's neck, as shown on this Golden Retriever.
Photo: Parilov / Shutterstock


Last year, a position statement from the European College of Veterinary Clinical Ethology argued against the use of electronic collars in dog training and for a Europe-wide ban on their sale and use.  Now an article in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour by Dr. Sylvia Masson et al explains the reasons behind their position that electronic shock collars should not be used.

When people use electronic shock collars, it is typically as positive punishment to punish a dog for an unwanted behaviour. They are also sometimes used as negative reinforcement by applying the shock until the dog does the behaviour that is wanted. These days many electronic collars have a time limit on the application of shock, making it less likely they are used as negative reinforcement.

The paper considers all three types of electronic collars:

  • Antibark collars that are activated by noise and automatically give a shock when the dog barks
  • Electronic boundary fences that have underground sensors. When the dog crosses the boundary, the dog’s collar gives an electric shock
  • Remote-controlled collars that enable a person to deliver a shock to the dog via a remote control.

The paper concludes,
“...there is no credible scientific evidence to justify e-collar use and the use of spray collars or electronic fences for dogs. On the contrary, there are many reasons to never use these devices. Better training options exist, with proven efficacy and low risk.”

They go on to recommend a ban on the sale, use and promotion of electronic collars across Europe.


The paper outlines reasons people may give for using electronic collars: they say they work; they want fast results; they’ve tried it on themselves and think it didn’t hurt (not taking into account differences between human skin and dog skin); they think the risks are lower in the long-term than other alternatives; or they think it will be cheaper than hiring a dog trainer or animal behaviourist.

The paper looks at the scientific evidence and demolishes all of these reasons. Ultimately, the use of electronic training collars poses risks to animal welfare, as found in Ziv’s earlier review of aversive training methods more generally.

For example, people who use shock collars may end up paying more on a dog trainer or behaviourist if use of the collar affects their relationship with the dog or the dog’s welfare. The application of shock may result in fear, aggression or learned helplessness. Poor timing on the part of the trainer will increase these risks.

Studies show increased fear and stress in dogs trained with shock collars. And it is possible for dogs to associate this with things other than the behaviour being punished, for example with the trainer, the location of the training, or (in the case of boundary fences) with people or dogs who happen to be walking by.

Meanwhile, there is no research that suggests electronic training collars are more effective; in contrast, there is some research that suggests positive reinforcement leads to better results. (For example, one study found no benefits to the use of shock collars to teach recall but some risks to animal welfare).

So although people give various reasons to support the use of electronic collars, there is no evidence to support those reasons. The paper says many people are reluctant to use electronic collars and prefer to use humane methods.

The paper also considers spray collars that release a puff or air or a spray of citronella when a dog barks. They say that if spray collars are used, it should be under the supervision of a veterinarian or behaviourist. The collars do not address the cause of barking, and this needs to be taken into consideration.

"...there is no credible scientific evidence to justify e-collar use and the use of spray collars or electronic fences for dogs"

And they recommend physical fences instead of electronic fences. One study found a higher risk of escape with electronic fences compared to a physical fence.

The scientists also consider people’s sources of information about dog training, which are often poor. This means many people may not know positive reinforcement is a better way to train dogs.

This is an important paper that clearly states the many problems with the use of electronic collars in dog training. It remains to be seen whether the European countries that do not already ban shock collars move to enact such a ban.

Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Slovenia, Scotland, Sweden, Wales, and some parts of Australia already have a ban on electronic collars. England has plans to ban them.

In the meantime, if anyone is wondering whether or not to use an electronic collar on their dog, this article gives many reasons not to do so.

If you need help with your dog’s behaviour, choose a good dog trainer who will use positive reinforcement.

Professional organizations recommend the use of reward-based training methods (see seven reasons to use reward-based training methods).  You might also like my post the ultimate dog training tip. You can also read about my own article (published in the same issue of the Journal of Veterinary Behavior) on why don't more people use positive reinforcement to train dogs.

Subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology to learn more about how to have happy dogs and cats. And if you love Companion Animal Psychology, you can support me on Ko-fi.


If you’re interested in the science, I keep a list of dog training research resources where you can find the research on dog training methods (as well as places to read about it for free).


Reference
Masson, S., de la Vega, S., Gazzano, A., Mariti, C., Pereira, G. D. G., Halsberghe, C., Leyvraz, A.M., McPeake, K. & Schoening, B. (2018). Electronic training devices: discussion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the position statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology (ESVCE). Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558787818300108


Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Companion Animal Psychology News April 2019

Cats that fetch, equine therapy, and the joy of dogs... the latest Companion Animal Psychology news. Some of my favourites this month “A ton...