THE E-COLLAR DEBATE

There’s a continuous debate between trainers (including behaviourists) who support the use of e-collars, and those who don’t support them, and I’m on side with the latter. I don’t mind being a mediator and seeing things from both perspectives, including why people choose certain methods, but when it comes to choice, I want to make it clear that I will not use them.

https://tinyurl.com/2ewtmbyj (Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behaviour in Dogs)

The attached study was published on 11th September 2024, focusing on dogs chasing a lure where they utilised an e-collar and food reward. I want to recognise that e-collars do stop behaviour; a positive punishment (+) is added to stop a behaviour from continuing, and oftentimes referred to as an interrupter to stop a behaviour from happening if it’s predicted that the dog will present it. However, they do not support the welfare of the dog, which is my professional opinion. This can be argued against, but I’m stating my opinion in an unregulated business. In my eyes, when a decision is made regarding the use of an e-collar, it is usually to cut out the journey and get straight to the destination. I appreciate that some trainers say it’s the only thing to stop an aggressive dog from continuing a behaviour that is dangerous, but management can be performed by utilising muzzle training to prevent bite inhibition towards other dogs, humans and other stimuli in the environment. There is a way forward that doesn’t have to involve such aversive equipment. Yes, it will take a while longer as every dog is different, but it presents the opportunity to change the emotional and psychological response to negative stimuli that is instigating the behaviour, providing it isn’t medical, not just the behaviour we see.

Behaviour that is discerned to be motivated by a medical condition or medication side effect should be addressed by a veterinary behaviourist.

In the discussion, “We did not observe negative welfare impacts in the dogs trained with e-collars beyond presumably pain-induced yelps in immediate response to the electric shocks.” Providing the dogs didn’t yelp out in “presumably” pain any other time when in the arena, I would assume that there was a negative effect on their welfare. Two trainers pursued this study, one with 30+ years experience and the other with 5+ years experience, so this wasn’t an untrained dog owner completing the practical aspect of the study. People argue that dogs don’t feel pain when utilising e-collars, and that when tested on ourselves the pain is non-existent. Yet, we can anticipate what is coming. By the time a dog anticipates it, we’re looking at negative reinforcement, not positive punishment.

I appreciate why this study was carried out, which was to observe the efficiency of the e-collar vs food reward and the impact on the welfare of dogs when using e-collars, and that the study had to be carried out without emotional attachment. However, I want to emphasise that chasing behaviour in dogs can be reduced without causing them pain or discomfort. Impulse control training and channelling your dogs’ innate behaviours in recreational ways can provide them with an outlet to display those behaviours without harming anyone.

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying, “they’re dogs, let them do what they want”. We domesticated them so we ought to find a way to help channel that behaviour if we intend to keep them as part of the family unit, but they are predators. There is guidance in place to help manage behaviour around livestock and wildlife, there is fantastic science-backed advice on the internet and in person to work on their breed-specific behaviours and so much more. There is a way forward without causing pain or harm to dogs.

I want to redirect you to findings on aversive methods relating to e-collars and how they have been found to increase stress, fear and negative emotions in dogs:

https://tinyurl.com/sk8n7zx4

(Electronic Training Devices: Discusssion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs...)

“Literature evaluating aversive methods in general. Indeed, punitive training methods induce higher risks of aggression (Beerda et al., 1998, Herron et al., 2009), fear, anxiety (Arhant et al., 2010), and undesirable behaviors (Blackwell et al., 2008) being shown, while decreasing the quality of the dog-owner relationship (Hiby et al., 2004), dog welfare, and dog-human team performance (Haverbeke et al., 2008) compared to nonaversive techniques. Negative emotional responses as a consequence of aversive techniques can lead to behavioral inhibition and can be detrimental for learning and performance of dogs, undermining the general purpose of training.”

When you liaise with dog trainers and behaviourists, please make sure that you’re doing your own research too. We’re continuously learning about the psychology of dogs and how we can effectively train them, with and without such aversive methods.

https://tinyurl.com/y46jdwma

(Position Statement on Humane Dog Training)

“In observational studies, dogs trained with aversive methods or tools showed stress-related behaviours during training, including tense body, lower body posture, lip licking, tail lowering, lifting front leg, panting, yawning, and yelping. Dogs trained with reward-based methods showed increased attentiveness to their owner

Reward-based training methods have been shown to be more effective than aversive methods. Multiple survey studies have shown higher obedience in dogs trained with reward-based methods.

Hiby et al (2004) found that obedience levels were highest for dogs trained exclusively with reward-based methods and lowest for dogs trained exclusively with aversive-based methods. Dogs trained with a combination of rewards and aversive-based methods (often referred to as ‘balanced’ in the dog training industry) produced lower obedience levels than reward-based but better than exclusively aversive-based training. Aversive training has been shown to impair dogs’ ability to learn new tasks.”

While the main study presents how efficient aversive methods utilising e-collars are in stopping the behaviour (remember that was only used in a chasing behaviour setup), they are not necessary in modifying dog behaviour when dogs respond better to reward-based training and positive reinforcement.

Please don’t hesitate to speak to your trainers and behaviourists about these subjects. Ideally the person you're working with should be aware of both sides' arguments.

IDIOPATHIC AGGRESSION

Idiopathic Aggression is described as the most dangerous kind of dog aggression, as it can appear all of a sudden and without a known cause. It can also be a form of aggression that is misinterpreted by the owner and even by the trainer and/or behaviourist. Working towards overcoming the aggression without discernment of the cause can create even more unpredictable behaviour in dogs.

Some causes of Idiopathic Aggression can include epilepsy, thyroid issues (such as hyperthyroid and hypothyroid), leishmaniasis, kennel cough, hormonal changes, medication side effects and kidney issues. It’s possible that it can also be passed down through genetics from one or both parents, which can be dependent on dog breed. However, the diagnosis of Idiopathic Aggression should be labelled once other causes have been ruled out.

Signs of Idiopathic Aggression in dogs are likened to other forms of aggression, such as: lunging, snarling, salivating, growling, barking and biting. There’s one other sign of Idiopathic Aggression, which is glazed over eyes and what is described as a “possessed” looking dog.

A distinguishing factor in Idiopathic Aggression is that it can start to be presented in moments of severe aggression between the ages of one to three years old, and it is most commonly presented in breeds such as Cocker Spaniels, English Springer Spaniels, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Saint Bernards and Lhasa Apsos, which can imply that there is a possible genetic disorder that clouds over some of these breeds of dogs.

When clients come to me to support them in helping their dogs overcome “sudden” aggression, my first requirement is that they take their dogs to the vet to rule out all other causes, and styles of training such as positive punishment leaning into quite aversive methods should be avoided to prevent escalating the aggression. This is why it’s important to work with your dog and not against them!

Unfortunately there isn’t a cure for Idiopathic Aggression. As it’s summarised with no known cause, the management of it is still dog-specific and should focus on each dog’s journey. It’s important to work on preventing and managing your dog’s aggression before you make decisions regarding rehoming and euthanasia.

In a family or shared home setting, everyone should be working towards the same goal for your dog. Adjusting the environment to meet your dog’s needs is imperative, as is understanding how we as humans affect and contribute towards dog behaviour, whether or not we’re aware of it. Idiopathic Aggression is a tough journey for the human, but for the dog it’s probably the biggest and longest (lifelong) challenge they will face.

POSITIVE VS NEGATIVE IN DOG TRAINING

In the world of dog training, the words positive and negative don’t always hold the same connotation that they do in unassociated context. In a distinct conversation, we’d more than likely use the word positive to describe something as good, encouraging or affirming. When using the word negative, we’d probably use it to describe something as bad, distasteful, or pessimistic.

When used in the world of dog training, the words positive and negative are connected to the four principles of operant conditioning: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.

It’s a common misconception that when you incorporate a positive method, that you’ll create a positive emotion and/or response in your dog. It’s also assumed that when you apply a negative method, that you’ll create a negative emotion and/or response in your dog. However, that’s not entirely true.

The positive (+) represents adding a stimulus to either increase or decrease a behaviour.

The negative (-) represents removing a stimulus to either increase or decrease a behaviour.

(+) When a dog performs a behaviour that you want, you give them a reward. This is positive reinforcement, and by adding a stimulus such as a treat, the dog is more likely to perform the behaviour again.

(-) When a dog’s bottom is pressed down into a sit command with the owner’s hand, the hand is then removed. The removal of the owner’s hand is what reinforces the behaviour and increases the likelihood of the dog sitting on command to avoid the intervention of the unpleasant stimulus. This is negative reinforcement; the negative being the removal of the hand.

(+) When a dog barks at a stranger walking past their house and their owner yells “stop” or taps the dog on the nose, they’re adding a punishment to decrease the likelihood of the behaviour happening again. The addition of the punishment (whether it’s verbal or physical) is what makes it a positive punishment. Positive punishment is used more than people realise. When we use the words “no”, “leave” and “ah ah”, although they’re not expressed with superior intentions, they are a positive punishment because they’re added to reduce a behaviour.

(-) When you’re walking your dog and they start to pull on the leash, you stop walking until they stop pulling. You’re removing the stimulus of walking until the dog stops pulling, it’s a classic example of negative punishment, with the negative aspect being the removal of the walk.

I also want to touch on counter-conditioning, which is when you present a dog with a stimulus that induces a negative emotion and couple it with a stimulus that induces a positive emotion. This is a form of behaviour modification that targets the emotional response of the trigger.

I work towards meeting dogs’ needs and helping them overcome obstacles by incorporating positive reinforcement and counter-conditioning for behaviour modification. While it’s almost impossible to avoid positive punishment (addition of verbal reprimands) and negative punishment (removal of stimulus), they can be heavily avoided by working at each dog’s pace, not overwhelming them with too many tasks or taking them to high distraction environments to push for quick achievements.

While positive punishment will create quick results (using prong and shock collars, for example, which are the poster art for aversive tools), I see those results as an illusion. The behaviour is masked by fear of punishment taking place, but it doesn’t remove the underlying emotion that triggered the original behaviour. I would much rather have a longer journey with a dog and work at their pace, counter-conditioning and using positive reinforcement as much as possible, instead of instilling more negative emotions in a dog with more harmful, aversive methods.

I also want to add that timing with positive punishment is critical. If this is a route you decide to go down, then you need to implement it as the behaviour is presented. Say you leave your dog home alone and then they chew up your cushions while you’re out, and then you arrive home to see the mess. You might decide to berate or even hit your dog, yet you didn’t see the behaviour happen, and there’s not nearly enough evidence to support dogs feeling guilt and knowing that they shouldn’t have done something.

When you intervene too late, not only is that an act of cruel behaviour on your part, but it also crushes your relationship with your dog. Hence the rise of positive reinforcement in dog training.

What we need to ask ourselves is why we’re adding reinforcements and punishments, and why we’re removing stimulus. Is it to support our dogs or to support ourselves? What emotion does this create in our dogs? What behaviour increases and what decreases? How do these methods support our dogs in the long run? Does this increase our dogs’ trust in us? Philosophising the bigger picture can help you succeed in helping your dogs thrive.