Dog professionals and owners alike are at loggerheads over the use of these devices and similar so-called aversive training tools and methods. From the prong collar to the shake can, the pet corrector to the shock collar and even the slip lead, these are tools used to manage and correct dogs behaviour and many have been in use for a very long time. But does that make them the best tool available or indeed, should they be used at all?
Is this the best training tool?
I will be looking at both sides of the argument and even testing these devices on myself so to have a complete understanding of their use and efficacy.
The argument for these devices often states that the results are quicker and more dramatic turnaround in behaviour, and of course the majority of people want fast results, but are the dogs actually 'fixed' or is it actually something known as being shut down-a survival method essentially. When fight or flight is no longer an option, the dog will often resort to this 'learned helplessness' state. A situation where the dog has learnt that there's no running from or fighting off the offending thing, they become meek and almost robotic.
Surely an inoccuos thing such as a shake tin can't be harmful? A tin with stones or "Training disks" (think the metal disks from a tambourine) are intended to startle a dog. Often suggested that this will aid in 'breaking' the pattern of behaviour. For full disclosure, at the beginning of my training career, I was taught that these were a great tool, and fully believed it, until I saw the less effective results and often negative fall out-more on that later. These are commonly used for excessive barkers and reactive dogs. Do they work? In a word - No. They can be effective temporarily and show what seems like rapid results initially, but all too often they stop working. Why? Because they are masking and only treating a symptom if you like, of a bigger problem - WHY is the dog barking?
These startle devices only manage what the dog does and not the why. The other fall out from these is the chance to disassociate from the noise as the startle it's meant to be, and instead associate the startle (and associated stress) with the thing that's causing the barking which may well escalate the issue. If it's barking at the postman, for example, and they begin to associate the stress from the shake can to the postman, quickly that poor letter carrier is becoming more and more at risk.
Next spray collars and Pet Corrector. These work in a similar method-a shocking or unpleasant spray or sound to deter the dog from repeating a behaviour. These are commonly used for barking and reactivity also, and so as not to repeat myself, work in essentially the same manner, but instead of just sound, now there's a blast of pressurised air or pungent citronella right by the dogs face. The results can again appear instant but as said before, unfortunately only mask the What not the Why. These can also cause the problem of skin reactions due to allergies and as one client found out to her horror, the dog so detested the Pet Corrector from a single use, he became fearful of the woman who used it and even items of similar colour!
And before we go on to shock collars, we'll look at Prong, Check choke/chain, half check/choke collars and slip leads. Firstly slip leads. Seemingly harmless in many people's eyes, but look at the mechanism. It's quite literally a noose. The dog pulls, the lead tightens until either the dog slows or the pressure gives from elsewhere. These are used in field sports and for a fully trained dog who walks quietly to heel and for the purpose of quick release while working, there is nothing wrong with them. That is their primary purpose.
However not so long ago, these were the standard dog lead. Were there so many concerns then about the hazards of their use? Well no. Because not so long ago, rolled up newspaper beatings were considered the right way to house train a dog. The check/choke type collars are also a concern. When chaining a dog in the yard was considered completely acceptable, walking a dog on a chain lead and a quick yank on the check/choke collar to 'Correct' pulling or reactivity seemed logical. And while a fabric martingale for breeds such as sighthounds if used solely to prevent the collar slipping over their head, brings with it very little ethical questioning, tools designed to constrict around the neck of an animal (dogs, consequently have actually much thinner tissue at the neck than we do) must surely be questioned as to their safety.
In the test situation I will be wearing a prong collar to discover just how useful, effective or potentially harmful they are. This will be covered in the next blog and a video. Prong or pinch collars work in a similar manner to half check/choke but with the added 'benefit' of pinching/poking by multiple rounded metal teeth. Along with many aversives, these are often suggested for powerful or reactive dogs as being the only safe way to manage them. The reaction is swift and many report a quick turn around in problem behaviours however once again this can most likely be attributed to a fear of repercussions rather than direct learning of appropriate behaviour.
Finally Shock Collars or E collars or Educator Collars - whichever term you use. These are hotly in debate right now. Recently the Scottish Government made a u-turn on policy agreed in November to heavily monitor and control their usage, to now deciding to ban them. This decision is based on the understanding that these devices cause harm and as such should not be allowed under animal welfare restrictions. But are they so bad? Are they cruel? Again this will be tested on myself in the video blog, but for now here's the views: FOR their use, it's said that dogs are saved from euthanasia that other methods wouldn't have been able to fix. Dogs once incapable of even being near a dog/child/other people, now mixing freely. It's said that the level of what's called by the promoters 'stim' (read electrical impulse) is such that even tens machines designed to help with pain operate at a higher level. Obviously a big pro for many is the apparent speed with which dogs 'learn'. But, those AGAINST would argue that no learning has taken place in regard to the intended lesson being taught. In part because the 'stim' would increase stress (even if we agree that the level is incredibly low) because they simply wouldn't work if the dog didn't find the sensation unexpected/scary/painful/stressful. Even a very low reaction to a very low level stim causes stress to spike-its a biological response.
Redirection biting:
The other BIG problem, and this can occur with any aversive tool is Redirection and or escalation. Dog reactive dog sees approaching dog - becomes alert (What many who use
aversives refer to as Dominant/Assertive behaviour) - handler uses remote collar - dog feels sensation while perceiving dog approaching - threat level feels increases because pain happens when approaching dog present. Now the dog may react by moving away from offending dog, a flight response (and the ideal response for those who promote e-collar use) or the dog may associate the approaching dog with the pain and escalate (giving the handler the choice to up the 'stim' until suitable response achieved (that harks back to the learned helplessness we discussed before) or intervene. This then puts the handler at risk of redirection. A dog who cannot fight because the e-collar 'corrects' every attempt to approach/engage and doesn't feel safe to flee or has peaked their stress levels (along with various other possible issues) may well redirect their stress onto the nearest thing that doesn't result in a 'stim'. Often this means dogs might be inclined to inadvertently lash out at the handler.
What I have found is that although on the surface these tools appear to work, and often quicker and with more dramatic results, the actual efficacy is debatable. When we are only teaching to fear repercussions and only managing symptomatic behaviour attributed to the WHY rather than the Why itself, can we really say the problem is solved? Many pro-aversive trainers feel that the lack of their use is neglecting a tool in a trainers arsenal, where those against feel that there are so many tools not utilising fear or stress that there is no call for their use. In a world where the majority agree physical repercussions for inappropriate or undesirable behaviour is not acceptable or the most effective method to teach with, why then, do we still accept this with dogs who lack the capacity to feel guilt or understand our reasoning? Some argue that without these repercussions more dogs would be euthanized as their problems would be too much to resolve with force free methods and indeed the disparity between the two sides of training is often due to misunderstanding of the force free method. It's not such that the training is permissive, which is what many so-called 'balanced' trainers suggest. The feeling is that force free methods have no repercussions for inappropriate or undesirable behaviour however the reality is simply that the force free trainers utilise what's known as negative punishment. The removal of something to reduce the incidence of a behaviour. Think of it as the way a parent removes access to the games console for the child who won't do homework. The child resists, then without access to a desired resource, completes the appropriate behaviour and the access to the console is returned. The child will be less likely to avoid homework in future. They also utilise threshold management. Meaning not putting a dog in a situation they can't be successful in.
So what conclusions can I draw at this point?
Firstly, it seems clear that there is some lack of understanding of learning theory for those who support the use of these devices. Secondly the likelihood of negative repercussions appears far too great for them to be seen as a safe tool. The 'fallout' from their use is such a risk it just cannot be argued that use is warranted. Do they offer apparently faster and more impressive results? It certainly appears so to many. Indeed it seems that this is a big part of why they maintain their popularity. The mainstream and TV shows with dramatic results, shocking 'before' footage and cleverly edited shots. The trickle down from scientific fact to Joe public is markedly slower in force free methods. The results are slower because resolution is at the dogs pace and the drama is low because the dogs aren't pushed into reaction thanks to aforementioned threshold management. In short, it doesn't make great TV. Thankfully there have been some brilliant force free shows more recently but these haven't hit quite the same level of hype, though likely because the series have been short and more focussed on training and skills rather than behaviour resolution.
Mech conducted a flawed study in '99 of unrelated wolves packed into an enclosure far too small for natural behaviour to exist. At the time, he suggested it showed how wolves lived in
a strict formal hierarchy and used physical force and fear of repercussions to teach those lower in the pecking order. This was then taken to be true of domestic dogs also, and the dominance theory and pack order flourished as the accepted understanding of not only how dogs behave but how to control and adjust behaviours. It has (pardon the expression) dominated the dog world's understanding of training and behaviour ever since. Unfortunately, and somewhat ignored by those who support this original study, Mech has spent the rest of his career trying to show how this study was wrong, based on new research with wild wolves. Mech's original study is the foundation upon which aversive training tools and methods are built, so is that an indication of whether they should be left in the past along with the flawed research?
Next time we will look at the physical results and efficacy of these tools in a video blog. If you have any questions or feedback, let us know!