Another Post About Shock Collars

 
Recently I came across a blog post promoting e-collars for a big name brand. I was surprised and disappointed in the level of support it received, leading me to once again examine my position on the use of these tools. First off, from here on out I am calling them one thing: shock collars. Not the "softer side" of what they are: e-collars, static collars, training collars, remote collars...shock collars. I did quite a bit of research for this post, which lead me to change my shopping habits so that my dollars, where possible, were not supporting retailers or manufacturers of shock collars. This past week, I've done even more delving into the history, sale and prevalence of shock collars and examined more deeply why, exactly, I am so vehemently opposed to them.

I'm not arguing the effectiveness of shock collars. Shock collar training works through operant conditioning - the same principal as positive reinforcement. Modern studies are proving that reward-based methods are both more effective and pose a reduced risk for distress and lasting negative psychological effects. The use of shock collars falls into two of the four quadrants of operant conditioning  - negative reinforcement and positive punishment. The collars are commonly used in one or both of these ways:

1. The dog receives a shock for an undesirable behavior, such as barking or digging (natural dog behaviors). This is an example of positive punishment, because you are adding an aversive consequence to reduce frequency of a behavior.

2. The dog receives continual shocks until it does the desirable behavior, such as being shocked continually until it is in heel position. This is an example of negative reinforcement, because you are taking away an aversive consequence to increase frequency of a behavior.

A shock collar, by design, is always an aversive tool. What does aversive mean? It means "causing avoidance of an unpleasant or painful stimulus." Those fancy shock collars that have one hundred different levels just give the ultimate precision in discomfort. Call it "annoyance," "stimulation," "just a tap" - it is unpleasant enough that the dog changes its behavior in order to avoid it. I watched a manufacturer's instructional video for an anti-bark collar - the dog in the video jumped and cowered when it received a shock for barking, and the video warns not to accidentally receive a shock yourself. It is instinctual for a dog to hide its pain, and even if the owner tries the shock levels on themselves, how is that any guarantee that they are feeling the same thing the dog is feeling? Pain tolerance varies by individual, which is why in the many reviews of shock collars that I read, there were complaints ranging from "my dog didn't feel anything" all the way to "my dog cried and hid the rest of the day."

The fear of malfunction alone should be enough to make people think twice about using them. There are no regulations in place regarding the performance or reliability of these products. Again, based on pages upon pages of reviews that I read, there were instances of buttons being stuck down and the dog being shocked for unknown durations, and contact points causing actual burns on skin. If you think these are old or outdated examples before the technology was improved, they were all from readily available products in 2014. Shock collars range in price from $39.99 to upwards of three hundred dollars. I suppose as with all things...you get what you pay for.

Many people reviewing shock collars report that they only have to reach for the remote for the dog to "know what's coming" and behave. When I train with my dogs, I love to see their open-mouthed, tongue-lolling grins and their butts wagging because they know what's coming...a yummy treat or a favorite tug toy. I don't understand why you would want your dog not to be motivated by good things, but to suppress behavior out of fear of bad things. One of the things that bothers me about a shock collar remote is the distance it provides...people who probably wouldn't dream of hitting or kicking their dog have no qualms about pressing a button that causes their dog to yelp or jump. The dog doesn't know where it came from, and there was no physical contact. It is the same kind of sneaky rationalization that much of the advertising language from the shock collar manufacturers and retailers use, softening "shock" to "static" and "correction" to "stimulation."

I asked my Facebook followers to tell me the first word that came to mind when they thought of shock collars, and created a word cloud from those results:

Given that it's my audience, built mainly of like-minded, force-free-philosophizing dog lovers, the results are no more surprising than a leading shock collar manufacturer's press release stating that 86% of people already using shock collars found them to be an effective training tool. The people already using these collars are not the minds I'm hoping to change, no more than they are going to change mine. There is absolutely nothing that could convince me to put a shock collar on my fearful, sensitive, reactive dog or my calm, gentle, normal dog. 

In all my thinking, discussing and reading, I've come to realize that my own distaste for the collars is tied more esoterically to cultural attitudes. I see parallels in the use of shock collars to animals bought on a whim and later dumped in shelters for not conforming to expectations. The assumption is often made that dogs are just supposed to intrinsically know how to behave, even though many of the things we want them to do or not do are against their very natures. I question the desire to control them - often suppressing the very behaviors that define their dogness - with the push of a button. I can hear the criticism now "but don't you use a clicker - isn't that a button?" A clicker is simply a marker, no different than saying "good dog" except that it allows for more consistency and precision. It is not an attention-getter or some kind of remote and it is not even positive reinforcement on its own, but the promise of positive reinforcement. The shock collar remote and the beep or vibration "warning" mode that many possess are the threat of positive punishment.

I know that many of my readers are on the same page and while it is nice to be in good company, my aim in these sorts of posts is to reach the one or two people who may have already bought a shock collar but are hesitant to use it, those with reactive dogs who are thinking of it as a last resort, or someone who thinks there can be no harm in trying it. I'd ask you to reconsider, to do your own research, and to ask whether you would rather have a dog working with a currency of trust, or one working with a currency of fear. 

Sources:

The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training

Amazon reviews of Remote Shock Collar

The Pet Professional Guild

Training With Grace

Are You Listening?

Recently I moved my Paso Fino gelding, Coro, who had been boarded over an hour away for the past year, to a new stable. My main goal was simply to have him closer to me, as I wanted to be able to visit and ride more often. I wanted an arena to ride in - it didn't have to be indoors - and ideally, some trails. Beyond that, all of my criteria were about Coro. I had several barn managers scoff at some of my considerations - mentioning that I wanted a place less busy or with more grazing -  and say things like "it shouldn't be about what your horse wants" or "who's running the show - you or your horse?" At 25 years old, with two significant health issues and having already experienced a lot of change in the last few years, my answer is that it is about what my horse wants, within reason. I know which conditions he does best under, and I'd like to see him thrive for ten more years. I wanted him to be able to graze most days, to have shelter in bad weather, an active but not stressful social life, and an individualized feeding program including his daily medications. If that meant I drive a little farther, don't have an indoor arena, or pay a bit more - so be it. After a month of searching, calling and driving, I did find that perfect place for my old guy - one I think we will both be very happy with. I did not choose the barn that was a short 11 miles from me, because it had no grazing. I did not choose the barn that had an indoor arena, a heated lounge and beautiful trail riding, because there were holes in the pastures and fewer turnout days. I prioritized Coro's needs and found a picturesque little red barn tucked away behind a hill that offers his own private pasture and a safe, airy run. He has already settled in wonderfully and I think I made the right choice.

My father believes that having pets at all is a selfish choice, and I see how this could be argued philosophically. Having rescue animals with known backgrounds, having seen exactly where they came from and how their lives are changed, I truly think my animals are better off with me and that Boca, especially, is so obviously grateful for her new home. Even if it is inherently selfish, I do my very best to make their lives as happy, healthy and fulfilled as I am able. I was raised to put animals first by a woman who ran into a burning barn to save our chickens and rabbits. You can see why my dedication to them might be construed as a little over the top, but I wouldn't have it any other way. I stumbled across an old blog post in support of shock collars the other day, and as disappointed as I was since this is a blog I regularly follow, I had to read its entirety as well as the comments. The most discouraging commenter stated that she "had" to use a shock collar in order to take her dog to the dog park or let it off leash - two activities that should be enjoyable to the dog, but because they caused it fear or anxiety and just were not within its realm of comfort, pain and intimidation was employed so that it could conform to the commenter's ideal of a "normal" dog. I find this rationale heartbreaking.

For me, it is far more important that I am interacting with my animals with softness, kindness and grace whenever possible, than that they are fitting into some cookie cutter standard of what they are "supposed" to do or existing in places of expectation. I have made many changes and compromises for Ruby and I do so without hesitation. I mourned the loss of some ideas I had about the dog I wanted her to be, but gained so much more in seeing the dog she is and what she has to teach me. There is nothing more valuable than her trust. In Boca, by some twist of tropical fortune, I very likely do have the farmers-market-dog, the coffee-shop-patio dog, but we're taking it slow. I am interested in conversation, not conformity, and I know that they have more to tell me than I could ever tell them. I think that if we are listening closely, if we let them "run the show" sometimes, our lives with animals can be infinitely more rewarding.

Be the Change for Animals: Making the Decision to Shop Force-Free

Recently I read a post over at My Imperfect Dog about the pervasive presence of aversive training tools in online and brick-and-mortar pet retailers. This led me to do a lot of research of my own and to immediately begin to make changes in my consumer habits. With a sinking heart I found that I'd been promoting one major online retailer with monthly product reviews who offers page after page of  "e-collars" (a quieter way to say "shock collar") and invisible fencing alongside sickening copy that tries to make humorous light out of physical punishment. The language disguises the fact that these devices cause pain with descriptions of "harmless static" and appeases any feeling of guilt with references to "fur babies" and "parents" and "love." The more I looked, the more I found these devices everywhere, offered by almost every major pet chain, along with hundreds of reviews from customers who were satisfied with the "sweet revenge" and "attitude adjustments" that their purchases offered.

 

I read heartbreaking stories about dogs who had been trained with an invisible fence system who were terrified to leave the house, about a pair of dogs wearing remote training collars whose owner mixed up the controllers and was unknowingly shocking the crated dog instead of the dog in the field. Arguments are made that in the hands of experienced trainers and with well-adjusted dogs, these tools can be used effectively and without undue distress for the dogs. These arguments do not address the numbers of inexperienced people reaching for these tools for fearful or anxious dogs with behavior problems ranging from jumping on visitors to barking, using them without precision of timing or clarity of association, and potentially creating lasting psychological damage.

I also read some articles by "balanced trainers," those that are not opposed to using physical correction if the situation warrants it, just to see if I could be at all swayed. Whatever justification is used, I still could not imagine a scenario where I would willingly and deliberately cause pain or the fear of pain to my dog today. The science of positive reinforcement training is undeniable and its message is becoming more and more widespread. Here is an excellent explanation of why balanced training can create a spiritless or shut-down dog from the Smart Dog Blog. If you have the stomach for it, Eileen and Dogs has collected side by side video examples of dogs being trained using shock collars vs. dogs being trained using positive reinforcement. It doesn't take an expert to determine which dogs are enjoying the training sessions.

I asked my local force-free trainer - Laura McGaughey from Delightful Doggies - who has been a wonderful resource in outlining a plan for Ruby's reactivity, to provide a statement about aversive training tools, and here is what she had to say:

Electronic collars, prong collars and choke chains are tools that work using positive punishment and negative reinforcement methods. In my professional opinion, they are more harmful than helpful in training. A dog's throat is a very sensitive space, and I believe that anything strapped to a throat shouldn't be used for administering punishment or corrections. The trachea and thyroid gland can be affected, and harsh corrections can yield even worse damage; e-collars have also been shown to have a lasting psychological effect on dogs, causing them to be more anxious and fearful. Is this what we really want, when we have better options?

It is extremely important to always keep the perspective of the dog in mind, and to use the most humane tool possible for training. I believe that we should always weigh our choices carefully and put humane treatment at the forefront of how we interact with our animals. When we work with our dogs to help them make the right decisions and be reinforced, rather than coerced, we can lead happy, full lives together built on trust. And that's what makes training awesome and fun for both dog and human!

  
Another quote from Plenty in Life is Free by Kathy Sdao, resonates deeply with me:

Imagine if our primary goal for each dog-training lesson, class or consultation was to increase the comfort and joy of every creature in the room: dogs, human students and trainers.

Comfort and joy. This is what training and communication means to me, from starting my own horse to teaching a new trick to Ruby, and the heart of why I have embraced positive reinforcement training. It will come as no surprise that I am strongly opposed to the use of aversive training tools such as choke, pinch and shock collars. I don't need articles like this one to convince me. Having a sensitive dog like Ruby has made me even more aware of every training decision I make, and I would much rather exchange a currency of treats than one of threats. This puts me firmly on one side of the spectrum, and there are of course many on the opposite side who have no problem with incorporating fear, discomfort and pain into their training regimen, justifying the means to the end. Results-oriented trainers with guarantees, people who believe dogs are merely property or workers who must earn their keep. These are not the minds I set out to change, but rather those of dog owners somewhere in the middle, the new owners, the desperate owners, the ones who simply don't know and reach for a pinch collar because a big-box pet store employee suggests it (like I did years ago with my first dog), or because that's the first thing they see on the 'Training' page of an online retailer. 

Amazon UK has recently taken pinch collars off of their website and the Kennel Club UK is urging a ban on shock collars. While large corporations will not miss a handful of customers, we do have power as consumers, we do have a collective voice amplified by our spending. For my part, I will no longer be doing product reviews for any company that sells or manufactures choke, pinch or shock collars. I will write letters to retailers explaining the withdrawal of my business. I will not patronize the big-box pet stores which offer aversive collars on their shelves, instead supporting independent local businesses and smaller chains like Kriser's which promote reward-based training. 

Jessica and I have begun compiling a Pinterest board of retailers that do not carry harsh aversive training tools, and her post details the steps you can take as a consumer to vote with your shopping habits and the communications she's had with some retailers. Pet-related spending hit a record high of $56 billion in 2013 - that's billions of dollars of influence. I urge you to examine your training values and your shopping options and determine if they are in harmony. Let those retailers who choose to carry choke, pinch and shock collars know that you'll be taking your business elsewhere and why. Take the time to thank the stores that highlight treat bags and clickers in their training aisle - shop with the power of positive reinforcement. 

Every day I am learning more about my own training philosophy and how to articulate it, and ultimately I would hope that every person asks themselves how they can do better by their dog. Choosing where to spend my pet budget and spreading the word about these choices is just one small way that I can be the change for animals. If you'd like to join us, please grab a badge, share the #forcefreeshopping hash-tag, and help say no to aversive training tools. 

This post is part of the Blog the Change for Animals Blog Hop, Powered by Linky Tools
Click here to enter your link and view this Linky Tools list...

Monday Musings: Why Positive Reinforcement Training Was the Right Choice For Me

Where's my cookie?

I grew up riding horses.  My first horse was a red Welsh-Arabian mare called Tinker, and had previously been my grandmother's mount.  She was sturdy, steady and safe - the perfect partner for a young girl to learn and grow with.  At some point Tinker developed what is known as "barn-sourness," when a horse is reluctant to leave or in a hurry to return to its herd-mates, employing any number of evasive behavior tactics to achieve this goal.  Tinker's evasion of choice was to pull the reins out of my hands on the way home, by lowering her nose to the ground and shaking her head, all the while increasing her speed.  One day she ran away with me up the driveway to the pasture gate in such a manner, and in an adolescent tantrum, I leapt yelling off her back and slugged her in the neck.  Her chestnut head shot up in shock and her deep brown eyes widened in surprise.  I was immediately horrified by what I had done and threw my arms around her neck sobbing my apology into her mane.  I promised to never do such an unfair thing again, to let my emotions get the best of me or to physically punish an animal.

My continued interest in horses led to an education and early career spent riding and training them.  It's true that you can't avoid the physical with horses - we're sitting on their backs, they outweigh us tenfold and even the gentlest training methods use a leather conduit to a noseband or a metal bit in their mouths - but I was always drawn to the "ride with your mind" and "less is more" philosophies, the trainers who employed soft hands and low voices.  I was easily offended by horse professionals who jerked on horses' mouths or smacked them with lead ropes, and I endeavored to avoid those methods.

By now you're asking "Isn't this a dog blog?" and I'll transition from the equine to the canine, although it's surprisingly not so different.  The horse is a prey animal and the dog is a predator, but both experience the same range of emotions, and with reactive dogs we are so often dealing with fear and insecurity.  Until I got Ruby I was not so interested in dog training.  I was happy for my dogs to be my constant companions, and so long as they were not destroying the furniture or nuisance barking, I wasn't concerned with tricks or obedience.  I'm going to make another confession now...despite my early experience with my horse Tinker and my vow to be a kinder, gentler animal handler, for a while I used a prong collar for my dog, Lasya.  She was a bad puller, and it was suggested to me by someone - I can't even remember who, now.  As Lasya got older, she became easier to manage and I eventually switched her to a regular slip-lead.  She had a very thick coat and that big Chow Chow lion's ruff, but I'm still sorry I used that medieval collar on her, because I know better now.  

When I adopted Ruby I knew that I wanted to work with her using purely positive, force-free training methods, and hired a trainer with a philosophy in line with my own.  I had heard of clicker training and even had a clicker lying around that a friend had given me, but for some reason I always thought of it as cheating.   My first experience with it was in Ruby's group obedience class (which we promptly flunked out of due to her emerging reactivity), and I quickly realized it was not a gimmick.  It is simply a more efficient bridge between the cue and the behavior, a quicker, more consistent way to say "good dog!"  Ruby picked up on it immediately and I nearly always use the clicker to introduce new tricks.  I take treats on walks and a squeeze bottle of peanut-butter in the car.  If a problem behavior develops, I ask myself what I'd rather see her doing, and take the steps to reach that goal.  I offer alternatives and encourage her more desirable choice.  Positive reinforcement is more akin to essays than true and false, and the results are not as fast or as flashy as certain celebrity trainer methods or the increasingly out-dated pack/dominance theory.  Positive reinforcement feels more fair and honest to me, it's a conversation instead of a diatribe. It's funny to me that the same trainers who keep choke chains and e-collars (a sneaky name for a shock collar) in their toolbox consider clickers and cookies "crutches." Wouldn't you rather your dog work for the currency of treats and praise instead of out of fear of discomfort or pain?

As I've gotten older I'm able to more closely articulate the kind of relationships I want with my animals.  I am not interested in being the boss, in receiving a rehearsed answer to every question I ask.  I want a partnership in which my horse or dog thinks for itself, offers questions of his or her own.  It's in the moments where we're listening that the real magic happens.   Existing with and training dogs is a learning process, and it is our responsibility to evolve with the knowledge available to us, to better ourselves and our relationships.

Further Reading:

Why Dogs Are More Like Humans Than Wolves from Smithsonian

De-Bunking The "Alpha Dog" Theory from Whole Dog Journal

Dominance Myths from the Association of Professional Dog Trainers

The Power of Positive Dog Training by Pat Miller

Reaching the Animal Mind by Karen Pryor