Shock collar
[4][2][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][excessive citations] The mechanism behind shock collars involve inflicting varying levels and duration of pain, which generates fear[16][17][18][19] and serves as a deterrent for undesirable behaviors.
Certain advanced collars include Internet mapping capabilities and GPS functionality to track the dog's location or notify the owner about its whereabouts.
In the late 1960s, shock collars were initially developed for training hunting dogs, but they were originally designed with only one high level of power.
Where legal, the most common use of shock collars is pet containment systems that are used to keep a dog inside the perimeter of the residence without the construction of a physical barrier.
These systems are illegal in "Austria, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Quebec, Wales and Scotland"[23] Where legal, this use of shock collars is increasingly popular in areas where local laws or homeowners' associations prohibit the construction of a physical fence.
[27][28][29] Better quality remote trainers have a large variety of levels and functions, can give varying duration of pain,[30] and have a beep or vibration option useful for getting the dog's attention.
Dr Diane Frank, in the Australian Veterinary Journal, firmly argues that shock collars for dogs inflict substantial pain and distress.
If the shock and pain are profound, it is possible to induce almost immediate long-term potentiation (LTP), or the molecular changes associated with hippocampal memory, which will lead to a strong aversion or phobia.”[37] In contrast, Steven R. Lindsay, in the 2013 edition of his textbook on training and behavior, (while issuing more caveats and warnings about the use of shock collars than in previous editions), he continues in his belief of the public perception of the term "shock" and its application in the description of training aids that, "At low levels, the term shock is hardly fitting to describe the effects produced by electronic training collars, since there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin ... the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsive spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses ... the stimulus or signal generated by most modern devices is highly controlled and presented to produce a specific set of behavioral and motivational responses to it.
The shock-handcuffs [41] and stun belts that are used on human prisoners in the U.S. and South Africa (illegal in the U.K., the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, and Greece)[42][43] are approximately one-tenth of the amperage (3-4 milliamps).
[45] To provide further context for the 30-80 milliamps range of shock collars, it is worth considering various comparisons to differ ways pain has been labeled at varying amperages.
[49] In humans, a sustained current of 10 milliamps is considered the "let go threshold," leading to strong arm contractions and rendering the individual unable to voluntarily control their muscles or release an electrified object.
"[59] The standing policy of the US FDA is that "Dog collars which are activated by the noise of barking to produce an electric shock are considered as hazardous to the health of the animal.
[61][62][63][64][65] The Wildlife Society article addresses the use of shock collars as a way to prevent sheep from being preyed upon by wild coyotes.
A meta-review of 17 peer-reviewed studies found that “The results show that using aversive training methods (e.g., positive punishment and negative reinforcement) can jeopardize both the physical and mental health of dogs.”.
[64] The meta-review singled out shock collars by referring to the conclusion of Overall (2007) that they “should not be used for behavior modification in dogs, because of their aversive nature and due to the lack of scientific data on their effectiveness”.
The first, a path test, involved observing the dogs' reactions to a set of novel stimuli (rag pulled across the track, bundle of cans thrown down, tethered sheep at 5m) as it was walked.
When comparing owners’ reports for the two years, the dogs showed a weaker inclination for chasing sheep and other prey than previously (p < 0:001), but this variable was not affected by shock experience.
The quitting signal on the other hand requires criteria, such as good timing and structured training procedure, on account of complete conditioning to achieve effective results.
"[64] Schalke et al. conducted a 7-month study to investigate the effect of shock collars on stress parameters, in a series of different training situations.
Since the dogs in Schalke et al.’s (2007) study[74] ran after prey for less than two minutes a day, and since plasma cortisol samples were taken 10 minutes after the administration of the shock, it is unlikely that the short exercise contributed significantly to the elevation in cortisol levels.” [63] Schilder and van der Borg conducted a study to compare the behavior of police service dogs that had previously been trained using a shock collar (Group S) with those that had not (Group C).
Behaviors recorded included recognised indicators of stress (panting, lip-licking, yawning, paw lifting and body posture) as well as yelping, squealing, snapping and avoidance.
Lindsay says of this study, "Schilder and Van der Borg (2004) have published a report of disturbing findings regarding the short-term and long- term effects of shock used in the context of working dogs that is destined to become a source of significant controversy....
The absence of reduced drive or behavioral suppression with respect to critical activities associated with shock (e.g., bite work) makes one skeptical about the lasting adverse effects the authors claim to document.
Although they offer no substantive evidence of trauma or harm to dogs, they provide loads of speculation, anecdotes, insinuations of gender and educational inadequacies, and derogatory comments regarding the motivation and competence of IPO trainers in its place.
[83] The Canadian Association of Professional Dog Trainers,[84] PACT[85] and the BC SPCA’s AnimalKind Accreditation[86] prohibit members from using shock collars.
[90] CABTSG (The Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group), an affiliate group of the BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association), now renamed the British Veterinary Behaviour Association, no longer has a policy statement against shock collars because England outlawed shock collars on February 1, 2024.
[93] In June 2023 the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations 2023 were approved by the Lords but a delay in implementation leading to the BVNA[94] alongside other charities such as the RSPCA[95] launching a campaign to support the proposed ban.
[38] The 2013 edition was published in Germany, where shock collars were made illegal in 2006,[1] but Lindsay believes that they “may play a valuable therapeutic role in counteracting established patterns of inappropriate and reactive behavior occurring under aversive or threatening situations”.
[38] The International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) avoids using the phrase "shock collar" or any other similar term in their official position.
[121] In 2002, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Victoria, Australia lost a defamation lawsuit to a shock collar manufacturer and was ordered to pay AUD100,000 in damages.
