Electric dog collar.

Over the past few weeks I've read two articles, one strongly in favour of punishment, particularly electric collars, and another reporting on a dog that developed behavioural problems whose owner went on the internet and bought a shock-collar. The writer of this particular article is not as far as I know either a trainer or a behaviourist but was simply reporting on a dog that had been failed by a number of people. The first mistake the owner made I read, was to purchase a puppy from a disreputable breeder. Later the dog was taken to a training class where apparently he learned very little. More astonishingly, the writer tells us that reward-based training didn't work because the dog was not food orientated.

This not only says much about the writer's understanding of reward based training, but tells us more about the road she is about to go down. But then we are told, the dog was sent away for training but still no improvement. The dog had become territorial and "would challenge people and really frighten them". The dog was seen by a behaviourist, who according to the writer identified the novice owner as the problem. Then the vet castrated the dog. Yet another behaviourist suggested that the dog be put to sleep. It was at this point that the owner went on the internet and purchased an electric collar. It's the same tired and feeble excuse that to use an electric collar "as a last resort" is acceptable.

I read that that the owner had "thankfully read up the theory as to how to use it". By now I was pacing the floor and feeling a very strong urge to scream. The owner had run out of options, I read. No he hadn't! He wanted a quick fix! The dog, it is reported, stopped being territorial after just two shocks. Surely one of the best advertisements for electric collars that I have ever read! There are unfortunately many dog trainers and behaviourists that fail owners and their dogs. It's a fact of life. However, there are many more that do not, and I count myself amongst these.

It's also very glib to suggest that one behaviourist simply pointed out that the owner was at fault and then left. Is this really what happened? Do we have it on good authority that this behaviourist said nothing else? Was the owner not given a programme to work on? And if so, did the owner actually work on it? Whilst I have a very large bone to pick with some so-called behaviourists, there are equally a large number of dog trainers and behaviourists alike who are thorough and professional. Whatever the problem with a dog, owners simply have to get to grips with the fact that it is they that have to take responsibility for their dog's behaviour and training.

An owner recently rang me to say that they were on the point of having their dog put to sleep because he was becoming more and more aggressive towards family members. I have no hesitation in stating that I had already visited them, in my role of behavioural counsellor to help them with the dog. They were given detailed, written instructions as to how to proceed. As backup they attended training classes to give their dog more mental stimulation and to develop a better relationship with him. When, after several months the dog showed little sign of improvement in his aggressive behaviour, they contacted the rescue society from where they had obtained him and were told that the dog should be muzzled at all times as this would lower his status within the family pack. A dangerous and inaccurate piece of information to say the least! Of course a muzzle can be used whenever there is a danger of anyone being bitten. Sadly, it would appear that many amateur behaviourists and trainers can do nothing else except advise that the dog in question is "dominant" and should have its status reduced.

The sad end to this particular story is that the dog was eventually put to sleep. The owner rang me again to say how very much she regretted not carrying out my instructions. She also admitted that her husband insisted that the dog should be punished for any misdemeanors, and was smacked or punished in other ways for aggressive behaviour. The question is a moral one. Should I, "as a last resort" have recommended an electric collar? Would this dog's life have been saved? Who exactly was responsible for the death of this dog? Perhaps his breeder, perhaps his original owner, but the dog's background was sketchy.

The punisher, in my view was directly responsible for the death of the dog. Had I recommended an electric collar, I know that he would have been happy to use one. Punishment is ultimately rewarding to the punisher - a sad indictment on the human race.

There will never be a time when I will recommend the use of the electric collar, especially in the doubtful hope that a dog's life will be saved. We all like a happy ending, and the "pushers" of electric collars claim just this. I don't believe that we ever hear about the real outcome of dogs that are regularly brutalised and abused in the name of training.

It doesn't help either when the reputation of trainers and behaviourists in general is besmirched in this way, giving rise to the belief that all are charlatans.

Recently in another magazine a writer presented an amazing treatise on the "art" of punishment. He told us that "conventional training is short on remedial offerings". He did not of course offer any scientific back up for this statement, so one must presume it's simply an opinion. He would have us believe that applying shock treatment to dogs that become "unsteady to stock, chase fur or run out of control" is the only training method likely to work. Again, simply an opinion founded on the rewards that punishment can bring to the punisher with its exhilarating promise of a quick fix and a happy ever after ending.

He tells us that "dog problems invariably involve distance: conventional techniques will have been tried, arriving at impasse". If the problem involves distance, why allow the dog access to distance and then punish him for something that the handler has just created? If a handler knows his dog is likely to chase and/or ignore the drop whistle, it is the handler that is allowing the problem to occur. As for entrapment: leading the dog into a situation simply to get the satisfaction of giving him the shock treatment is abhorrent. Repetitive, predatory chasing becomes reinforced because it is rewarding and not because the dog is "cocking a snoop". This anthropomorphic description only serves to convince uninformed dog handlers and owners that our dogs are out to "defy" us rather than simply acting upon instinct as opportunistic animals. The handler, by allowing the dog, to chase (and I emphasise the word "allowing") is guilty and not the dog. It may come as a surprise, but a clicker can also be used at distance, with no problem at all, again extremely effective in the hands of a skilled operator.

SUBTLE PUNISHMENT.
Of course there are many other types of punishment apart from the obvious electric collars and spiked collars. Choke chains are also a form of punishment as are lead jerks. The boot is also quite an over used piece of training equipment. Today I saw a man try to get his terrier to sit. At an outdoor cafe, the dog was excited because there were other dogs running around and lots of people. The owner shouted "SIT". The dog ignored him. He shouted again, this time stamping on the dog's rear end with his foot. The dog turned and snapped at him, so the man gave up. What a poor life this dog must lead, when he regularly has to defend himself from an owner who clearly knows little about the canine mind.

I was once fascinated to learn that a training class who regularly used choke chains were now advocating the use of "combi collars" instead. Which meant I suppose that the heavy lead jerking technique that normally accompanies the choke chain training, would now be given on the combi collar. Not that there's anything wrong with a combi collar - it's great for dogs that have learned the skill of slipping their collars.

I regularly see owners, smacking their dogs, not harshly in some cases but nevertheless it's there. The main training tool that most owners use when out in the park with their dogs is their voice. Given that a dog's hearing is very finely tuned, I'm at a loss to understand why the owners have to deafen me, let alone their dogs.

Thinking about it, the very first time I attended a training class I was told to shout all the commands to my dogs. In fact I saw a "training" demonstration on television a while back and it took me by surprise when a line of dogs and handlers suddenly yelled at the tops of their voices: "DOWN". Did it work? Yes it did. If it didn't, I suppose the idea is to yell louder.
So why then, do I still feel that old fashioned, heavy handed training methods didn't work, in spite of the fact that dogs appeared to obey? Trainers who use kind, reward based training methods and yet still pay lip service to these outdated training methods probably saw only the results they wanted to see. Punishment only serves to suppress a behaviour, but that behaviour can return fully when punishment ceases. What doesn't seem to be noticed is the fact that punishment is meted out on a regular basis for it to work reliably. In other words the behaviour of the dog hasn't really changed at all.

On a happy note, I found the following news item on the internet:
"Chief police officers have launched a new strategy after deciding to remove pinch and electric collars from the approved list of equipment in police dog training.

Pauline Clare, Chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) police dog sub committee says, "Police dogs are invaluable in the fight against crime and the service is committed to ensuring their welfare. The publication of this strategy follows a comprehensive review of the police use of dogs, which was undertaken following the death of a police dog during training. We have looked at all matters relating to the operational use and training of police dogs, identifying and promoting the best practice."

The strategy will focuses on six key areas; welfare and treatment of police dogs, training and operational policies and processes, quality assurance and monitoring, partnerships with other organisations, ensuring professionalism in training and raising public awareness of the work of police dogs.

Clarissa Baldwin, chief executive of the Dogs Trust, said: 'We welcome ACPO's decision to end the use of shock and pinch collars in dog training and we applaud their enlightened approach to improving animal welfare. We are delighted to have been able to advise ACPO on their new dog training strategy. We hope that this will now be adopted by every police force in the country.' The Dogs Trust has now agreed to rehome dogs with the force following a three year ban, and two German Shepherds, TJ and Zak, are now undergoing assessment."

Should we now perhaps be looking at pet shops that sell choke chains? Would you be prepared to ask your local pet shop if they would consider removing choke chains from their stores?

_{source Your Dog Mag,}