The term collar shock is the term used to describe a practice-collar family (also called e-collar , Ecollars , remote training collar , Zap collars , or electronic collars ) that provide electric shocks with varying intensity and duration to the dog's neck (they can also be applied elsewhere in the dog's body, to achieve various training effects) through radio-controlled electronic devices incorporated into dog collars. Some collar models also include tone or vibration settings, alternatively or in connection with shock. Others include integration with Internet and GPS mapping capabilities to locate dogs or alert owners of their whereabouts.
Originally used in the late 1960s to train hunting dogs, the early collars were very high-powered. Many modern versions are capable of providing extremely low shock rates. Shock collar is now available and has been used in a variety of applications, including behavioral modification, compliance training, and pet containment, as well as military, police and service training. While similar systems are available to other animals, the most common are collars designed for domestic dogs.
Video Shock collar
Device type
Pet storage system
The most common use of shock collars is a pet retention system used to keep dogs inside the perimeter of a residence without the construction of a physical barrier. The use of surprise collars is increasingly popular in areas where local law or homeowner associations prohibit the construction of physical fences. Available systems include: installation in the ground to preserve the aesthetics of the yard; installation on the ground to strengthen existing barriers that do not contain enough dogs; and wireless systems to enable indoor use. Most pet containment systems work by installing wires around the yard. The wire does not carry current (as opposed to an electric fence that carries current at high voltage which may be lethal in case of unauthorized installation or equipment or defects) but forms a closed loop with a circuit box that transmits radio signals to the receiver's collar worn by the dog. As the dog approaches the limit, the collar will activate.
Skin control collar
Skin control collars are used to curb excessive barking or disturbance by giving surprises when the dog starts barking. Skin collars can be powered by a microphone or vibration, and some of the most advanced collars use sound and vibration to eliminate the possibility of a foreign noise that activates the response.
Train collar or remote trainer
Training collars can be enabled by handheld devices. Better quality long-distance trainers have varying degrees and great functionality, can provide a variety of stimulation durations, better quality stimulation, and have a useful beep or vibration option to gain dog attention. Proper training is a must for the use of long-distance collars, since abuse can cause negative behavioral impacts. Many recommend consulting with certified behavioral or professional certified training experts with surprise collars for successful use and applications.
Shock collar can be used in conjunction with positive reinforcement and/or utilizing other principles of operant conditioning, depending on the trainer's method both as a form of positive punishment, where shock is applied when undesirable behavior occurs, to reduce the frequency of that behavior; or as a form of negative reinforcement, in which continuous stimulation is applied until the desired behavior occurs, to increase the frequency of that behavior.
At the beginning of the dog's surprise collar, you must use the familiar command of the dog. Observe your dog's behavior after applying each command and if your dog does not respond correctly then press the transmitter button and repeat the command.
Remember, your target is not to hurt your dog through an electronic collar, instead you want to train your dog one step at a time. Set a shock collar at the lowest level of stimulation and reward your dog with special care to reinforce his good behavior.
Maps Shock collar
Reference frame
Electrical shock is a physiological reaction, sensation, or injury caused by an electric current passing through the body. This occurs in contact of body parts with an electrical source that causes sufficient current through the skin, muscles, or hair.
Commenting in his textbook on training and behavior, Steven Lindsay writes about public perceptions of the term "surprise" and its application in the description of training aids; "At a low level, the term shock hardly fits to illustrate the effects produced by electronic training collars, as there is virtually no effect beyond the tingling sensation or tickling that pulsates on the skin surface... said shock loaded with connotation bias, seizure images and wounds burning seizures, and the implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological fallout, and laboratory abuse... the stimuli or signals generated by most modern devices are highly controlled and presented to produce a specific set of behaviors and motivational responses to it. "
In an article for the trade magazine "Office for veterinary services and food control", Dr. Dieter Klein compared the effects of shock collars with other electrical stimulation products; "Modern devices... are in a range where there is usually no organic damage generated.The electrical properties and performances of modern low-level remote stimulation devices are now... comparable to the electrical stimulation devices used in human medicine Organic damage , as a direct impact of the applied flows, can be excluded. "
Technical considerations
Electrical shock can be characterized in the form of voltage, current, waveform, frequency (waveform), pulse and duration. Although the voltage, current and duration of shock can be used to calculate the amount of energy used (in Joule), this is not an indicator of the intensity of the stimulus or how it can be perceived by the receiver. Depending on the design, the shock collar can be adjusted so that the given shock is only slightly uncomfortable. Setting such variables is very important, so the shock collar can be adjusted to the level required by the dog, when the situation changes.
Shock collar is sometimes referred to as giving "static shock"; However, static electricity is a direct current and carries little energy (sequence millijoules). Collar shock utilizes alternating current. It is therefore not appropriate to refer to the shock collar as giving a static shock.
To provide a consistent shock, good contact should be made between the collar electrode and the dog's skin (the collar must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions). Local humidity and individual variation in coat density, skin thickness and surface conductivity, will also affect shock deliveries.
The waveform, its frequency, pulse, current, voltage and impedance are important determinants of possible responses. "Many e-collars appear to shift the intensity level by changing the pulse duration or repetition rate while keeping the output current and voltage relatively constant, depending on the leather-electrode load." (Lindsay 2005, p.Ã, 573).
The individual variation in temperament, pain sensitivity and susceptibility to dog shocks, means that the setting of the shock should be carefully adjusted to produce a shock felt by the dog because it is just embarrassing enough to stop the dog from engaging in undesirable behavior. Usually prominent stimuli, such as voices, commands and even shock, may have no effect on highly aroused dogs and focus on activities such as hunting.
Potential causes damage
In 1980 (revised 1987), the United States Veterinary Center (CVM), a branch of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), approved the regulation of leather-collar producers, stating "Complaints received, which are then corroborated by our own testing, including severe burns in the collar area and possible personality adjustment injuries to the dogs The shocking mechanism found not only activated by barking but with honking vehicles, slamming doors or other loud noises, regulatory actions against the device as it is considered harmful to animal health. " The existing policy in the US FDA is that "Dog collars that are activated by bark sounds to produce electric shocks are considered harmful to animal health."
There are no rules that define the performance characteristics or reliability of these devices, so there is considerable variation in the characteristics of shock and wave levels between manufacturers, and perhaps even between collections of collars from single manufacturers. Lack of rules or standards, and the fact that some safety features of the shock collar are patented by certain manufacturers, means that the safety and operational characteristics of individual products can not be verified.
Training effectiveness
The debate over the effectiveness of shock collars is highly debatable, but not one-sided. Each side has a wide range of supporters and activists from professors, activists, and coaches. According to Dr. Overall, in his letter about shock collar, he says that shock is not an exercise. He stated "There is now tremendous scientific and research data demonstrating the danger that shock collars can be behavioral (Overall, 2005)". He talked about how most of the criteria for surprise collars are mostly the reasons for abuse. He mentioned that dogs affected by shock trading have a higher risk of getting undesirable results, such as aggressiveness and uncertain behavior. He stated that the data so far only supports "surprises are not an effective or unsuitable training tool (Overall, 2005)." He will then go to the state that he does not believe that "we can get through electricity what we can not get with advanced training and challenging work".
According to Pat Nolan, who has been training dogs for over thirty years, shock training is the key and effective way to train dogs (Nolan, 2011). According to the method described in his book, regular and fair use is the key in surprise training. He explains in detail what fair use is, stating that keeping regular training schedules is the key and setting limits to be understood by your pet (Nolan, 2011).
There are also pet organizations that are firm in their belief that shock training is a cruel and inhuman way to train animals. Groups like PETA and Pet Professionalism Guild are diligent activists to ban surprise collars. The main reason they are against the collars is their claim that they do not work as training tools and endanger animals. They represent the professional free industry of pet professionals everywhere. Their attitude to electric shock as a form of therapy is intolerant. They see it as abuse and there are better alternatives as a form of training. They believe that shock training is a form of punishment and that punishment must be consistently timely and intense (Trudge 2016). (5) Methods like acting are rewards are a more popular method of animal training. They claim that shock training requires constant training of surprises and can cause personality disorders in animals undergoing such training.
Non-lethal use
The Wildlife Society article discusses the use of surprise collars as a way to prevent sheep from being eaten by wild coyotes. According to (Phillips, 1999) they tested this collar on a coyote for a four-month period and found that the collar stopped thirteen attacks on the flock. This is also said to prevent future attacks by the coyote being tested. Collars are also used on wolves for the same reason. This document is a surprise collar assessment on the long-term behavior of wolves. The article talks about trying to change the behavior of wolves over a period of time using a collar. The consensus while it does have an effect when used and temporally after it is removed, the study concludes that longer exposure would be necessary to have substantial evidence (Hawley, 2008). As far as the non-lethal alternatives of these two sources conclude that surprise collars are the most effective prevention of predators. Both groups continued their research and the Wildlife Society has developed a new and improved version that eliminates the risk of neck injuries when used on animals caused by previous versions. They have improved battery life and unit endurance. They designed a unit that was worn like a backpack for animals. Previous versions cause excessive rubbing and pain and irritate animals to the point that they will try to remove the armor.
Scientific studies
Christiansen et al study (2001a)
Christiansen et al., Discerned the differences in behavior between the three dog breeds when confronted by domestic sheep (138 dogs, Elkhounds, hunting dogs and rabbits). Two test procedures are used and a shock necklace is used to prevent attacks on sheep. The first, the road test involved involved observing the dog's reaction to a series of new stimuli (a cloth drawn across the track, a thrown bundle of cans, a sheep moored at 5m) as it travels. The second test involves monitoring the reaction of dogs to free-ranging rams in the fields. In this study they identified several factors that predicted high hunting motivation and severity of attacks. This is the lack of an earlier opportunity to chase sheep, low fears of gunfire and unknown people and a common interest in sheep when confronting them. Younger dogs (& lt; 3 years) show a clearer and more frequent initial hunting motivation. Elkhounds show more hunting behavior, more attacks and more often given electric shock during the test. A surprise collar was used to block attacks on sheep during the experiment. Shock (3000V, 0.4A, duration 1 second) is delivered when the dog is within 1-2m of the sheep, and repeated until the dog leaves the area. The goal is to suppress the attack, but not damage the hunting ability of the dogs. Despite frequent chases and attacks, several shocks occur. This is because some dogs approach more than 1-2 m, and the intention is to obstruct proximity to sheep rather than associate hunting behavior with hostility surprises, which will undermine future hunting behavior in other contexts.
Christiansen et al. Christiansen et al. Christiansen et al. study (2001b)
The dogs used in the first study were retested using the same procedure to assess the long-term impact of training on their reactions to sheep. Again, in a free-walking test, the dogs are equipped with a shock collar, which is used to block the approach within 1-2m of the sheep. Dogs previously shocked in year 1 showed significant increases in latency to approach a person during a road test (p & lt; 0.001), although this is not a condition in which shocks have occurred. Owners report behavioral differences between years 1 and 2 in 24 dogs. 18 of 24 dogs have shown no interest in sheep during that period, even though they have been interested in them during the first year of testing. However, only one of the dogs received the shock, so the behavioral changes can not be attributed to the use of the shock collar. When comparing reports of owners for two years, dogs show a weaker tendency to chase sheep and other prey than before (p & lt; 0: 001), but this variable is unaffected by the shock experience. Dogs who have shown interest in sheep in year 1 show a persistent interest in the second year. No dogs chase or attack the sheep as their first response, while half of them do it in the first year. During the entire test period, the proportion of dogs that attacked the sheep decreased to nearly a quarter. The number of shocks given per dog decreases in the second year, and only one dog receives el. first year shock needed el. shock also the second year. Observations made both on the receiver and non-receiver el. first year shocks show a reduction in the probability of chasing sheep, but the recipient shows a greater decline, indicating that el. shock therapy provides additional learning responses. No adverse effects on dogs were observed with this training procedure, but in their discussion, the authors commented "To ensure no adverse effects, we recommend that electronic dog collars can be used for such purposes only if it is used by skilled trainers. specifically on dog behavior, learning mechanisms, and this particular device. "
Salgirli Dissertation (2008)
The purpose of the Salgirli study is "... to investigate whether there is pressure caused by the use of specially conditioned signals, stop signs, and/or pinching collars as an alternative to electrical training collars, and if they do, whether the stress generated in this process is comparable with those with electrical training collars. ". The study population was a group of 42 adult policemen. The stop smoking signal is a conditioned frustration equivalent to a negative punishment. It is conditioned by connecting failure to get anticipated food rewards with a particular vocal signal. In the exam, the dogs walk past a "provocateur" who tries to mock the dog in reaction. If the dog reacts, it is punished, and if it fails to react to the next provocation then the punishment is considered to have a learning effect. Therefore, the study is a comparison of negative and positive punishment methods, and not a comparison of punishment with positive reinforcement. The influence of learning is measured by assessing the number of dogs that learn to stop behavior after the application of a punishing stimulus. There is no statistical difference in the learning effect between pinch and shock collar, but the stop signal produces a much worse learning effect than the shock or pinch collars (p & lt; 0.01 in both cases). "Although pinching collars cause more behavioral reactions, in the form of distress, rather than electronic training collars, electronic training collars create more vocal reactions in dogs than pinch collars"; an explanation for the increased vocalization in the shock collar group is that this is caused by a surprising response rather than a pain reaction.
Saliva cortisol is monitored for measuring dog stress levels, but this data is not presented in the dissertation; Behavioral observation is the only measure of stress. The study concluded that electronic training collars induce less pressure and exhibit a "stronger learning effect" in dogs compared to pinch collars. Commenting on the stop signals, the authors state "It should be specifically mentioned, that signal training stops only implicitly in adult dogs within the framework of this study.Therefore, the result should not be interpreted as that the stop signal can not be the appropriate method in police dog training, As stated earlier, training on stop signals requires strict and structured procedures, so if training, ie conditioning, begins in childhood, the sign of quitting smoking can also be an effective method in police dog training. Compare the effects of the three methods of punishment; "This result may be explained by the electronic training collar in full accordance with the penalty criteria, defined by TORTORA (1982), in the case of evidence of proficient and experienced users.On the other hand when applying a pinch collar, this criterion can not be met even when the exact time is applied because the dog's reaction and the effectiveness of the method depend on several different factors such as the will, strength and motivation of the handler, as well as his skill.In addition, the administrator's visibility and, thus, punishment is another important factor affecting pinch pinch efficiency because dogs directly link the penalty with so the method does not meet the 'penalty criteria' at all. The stop signals on the other hand require criteria, such as good timing and structured training procedures, due to the complete conditioning to achieve the effective results.Even if these criteria are met, personality traits dogs are a factor etc., which affects signal efficiency. "
Schalke et al. Schalke et al. Schalke_et_al._study_ (2007) "> Schalke et al. Schalke_et_al._study_ (2007)"> Schalke et al. learning (2007)
Schalke et al. conducted a 7-month study to investigate the effects of shock on stress parameters, in a range of different training situations. Heart rate and salivary cortisol are used to determine stress levels in three groups of dogs. Group A receives an electric shock when they touch the "prey" (rabbit dolls attached to the motion device), Group H ("here" command) receives an electric shock when they disobey the recall command previously trained during the hunt, and Group R (random ) receive unpredictable and out-of-context random shocks. Group A showed no significant increase in cortisol levels; two other groups (R & D) showed significant improvement, with group R showing the highest cortisol level. Salivary cortisol is measured, since this procedure is less likely to cause increased stress associated with cortisol.
From here the researchers concluded that dogs could clearly associate shock with their action (ie touching prey) and as a result were able to predict and control whether they received a shock, did not show sufficient stress or persistence. Evidence of increased stress on other groups was felt to support earlier findings that poor timing and/or inappropriate shock usage puts dogs at a high risk of severe and sustained stress. They conclude that "The results of this study indicate that poor timing in the application of high-level pulses, as used in this study, means there is a high risk that dogs will exhibit severe and persistent stress symptoms.We recommend that the use of this device should be limited to evidence of the necessary theoretical and practical qualifications and then use of this device should only be permitted in specially designated situations. "
Schilder & amp; van der Borg's study (2004)
Schilder and van der Borg conducted a study to compare the behavior of police dogs who were previously trained using shock collars (Group S) and those not (Group C). In the training test no shocks were applied, but animal behavior was observed during the training task. The goal is to investigate whether shock-based training collar may have long-term effects on stress-related behavior even in the absence of shock, and whether this is related to the specific features of the training context. The recorded behaviors include known stress indicators (panting, lip-licking, yawning, raising the sole of the foot and posture) and screaming, shrieking, bullying and dodging. During the free walk at the practice site, the S dog group showed significantly more behavior associated with lower stress and posture than the group C dogs. During the training, the same differences were found. The difference between the groups is more significant when the training takes place in familiar training venues, showing a contextual effect. Coach presence is considered to be a part of this context. The authors conclude "We conclude that the surprises received during the training are not only unpleasant but also painful and frightening."
Lindsay said of this study, "Schilder and Van der Borg (2004) have published reports of disturbing findings about the short-term and long-term effects of shock used in the context of worker dogs destined to be a significant source of controversy. The absence of a reduction in impulse or behavioral suppression associated with shock-related shock activity (for example, bite work) makes people skeptical about the ongoing detrimental effects that the author claims to be documented.Although they offer no substantive evidence of trauma or harm to dogs, speculation, anecdotes, gender sarcasm and inadequate education, and disparaging comments about the motivation and competence of IPO trainers in place. "
Steiss et al. learning (2007)
Steiss, et al., Conducted a four-week study of the physiological and behavioral response of adult dogs in dog shelters to control skin collars. Cortisol plasma is used as a measure of stress. Dogs are randomly assigned to surprise collars, spray collars, or puppet collars (control groups). Dogs known to bark on unknown dogs are used for research. Test conditions involve presenting foreign dogs. Dogs wear collars that are activated for 30 minutes per day for three days in two consecutive weeks. The number of barks decreased significantly starting on the second day with both spray and shock collar. There was no significant difference of effect between the two types of collars. The treatment group's dog showed a mild but statistically significant increase in blood cortisol levels (stress indicator) only on the first day of wearing the collar (compared to the Control Group). Steiss and his team concluded that "In this study, with dogs wearing a skin-controlled collar for a period of 2 weeks, the collar effectively barked barking without statistically significant increase in plasma cortisol, compared with controls, at each measured time point. " Tortora Study (1983)
Tortora implements a method called "safety training" to treat aggression in 36 cases showing the form of "instrumental aggression", selected after filtering a population of 476 cases. The "instrumental aggression" is defined as describing aggressive actions that "have no clear evolutionary significance, are not directly related to emotional arousal, have no specific releasing excitations, are not directly modulated by hormones, and have no identifiable focus in the brain." Tortora states that in the context of the article "instrumental aggression" is specifically defined as an "aggressive response that has" a predetermined learning history, demonstrates the function of growth over time and is modulated by its consequences. These dogs have several alternative operands to gain reinforcement with adherence and channeled into a pathway that allows their innate aggressiveness to be under the control of a negative contingency in the environment. "The dogs initially behave as if they were" expected "hostile events and that the one- the only way to prevent this event is through aggression, therefore dogs are a very selected subset that has not yet learned a strategy to deal with threats.
Each dog is trained to respond to a set of 15 commands taken from the AKC standard for CDX compliance. The commands were chosen to give control over the dog, and include "heels", "stands" "go," "come," "hold," "drop" and "sit". This behavior is called "security behavior". Training is divided into 9 stages, each consisting of 5-20 training sessions twice a day. The dog can only advance to the next stage after passing the test. On average, dogs take 10-15 sessions to complete each stage. After training basic commands, dogs are trained to perform the behaviors they have learned to avoid increasing electrical shock. After that, they are conditioned to conduct security behaviors to avoid a "safe tone" that allows them to anticipate shocks. In the final stages of training, dogs are exposed to provocation by intruder dogs, and punished by using full intensity shocks if they fail to perform security behavior or if they show aggression. After the training is over, and the dogs choose to perform security behavior instead of aggression, the owner is taught to use the shock collar and the training is moved into daily situations. Training results in long and complete suppression of aggressive behavior in dogs. The dog is followed up 3 years after the training ends, and the reduction of aggression is maintained.
Criticism
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) opposes the use of a shock collar, which states "Dogs wearing shock collars can suffer pain and physical injury (from burns to heart fibrillation) and psychological distress, including severe anxiety and refugee aggression. Animals vary in temperament and threshold of their pain, surprises that seem mild to one dog may be severe to the other. Anxiety and confusion caused by recurring shocks can cause changes in the heart and respiratory rate or gastrointestinal disorders. Electronic bronzes can also be damaged , either managing endless shocks or no shocks at all ".
CABTSG (Association of Accidental Behavioral Behavior Learning Behavior), an affiliate group of BSAVA (British Small Veterinarian Association), produced a policy statement about the use of a shock collar, which states "Their effectiveness depends on the pain and fear experienced by animals, but uses it with really need a detailed understanding of their behavior and motivation, and the timing is very appropriate Some operators can achieve reliable success with this tool and the consequences of failure can be a deterioration of the behavior of the problem The use of surprise collars therefore poses a threat to the safety of the general public, as well as animal welfare We believe that an alternative treatment method is adequate there is such an electronic training device that is excessive.Therefore, as an association affiliated with BSAVA, it is our duty to recommend that surprise collars and all training and other related controls must be prohibited from being sold or used ". CABTSG has been renamed the British Veterinary Behavior Association.
The BSAVA (British Veterinary Animal Association Small) generates a statement on the collar-related risks "In principle, BSAVA opposes the use of electronic shock collars for animal training and containment.The shocks received during training may not only be acute, painful and frightening stress for animals but can also produce long-term adverse effects on behavioral and emotional responses. "
On the advice of the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and other welfare groups, the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) prohibits the use of collar surprises for police dog training by all British police forces. The ACPO Police Dog Guides Guide currently states "Unapproved equipment for use in police dog training including remote training collars designed to provide electric shock and Pinch Collars".
The RSPCA commissioned a review of the effects of a surprise collar from the Department of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Bristol, which is available online. It states "Given the lack of scientific evidence for the efficacy of behavior modification using shock collars, especially in the long run, in addition to potential errors or deliberate misuse and difficulty in correcting such errors, the widespread use of these devices should be considered with caution."
UK Kennel Club has an ongoing campaign to achieve a ban on the sale and use of surprise collars; "The Kennel Club opposes the use of negative training methods or tools Kennel Club believes that there are many positive training tools and methods that can produce dogs trained equally quickly and reliably, there is absolutely no fear, pain, or potential damage to relationships between dog and handler. "" The Kennel Club calls on the Scottish Government and Parliament to introduce a direct ban on the barbaric method of dog training. "
Two members of the German Shepherd Club Association (WUSV) in the UK have joined the Kennel Club to call for a comprehensive ban on the shock necklace, and pass a motion to exclude this equipment from its training branch during official club training time.
HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) provides the following comments on the use of aversive collars (chain choke, pinch collar and shock collar): "Some trainers use aversive collars to train" difficult "dogs with correction or punishment, relying on physical discomfort or even taste sick to teach dogs what not to do They suppress unwanted behavior but do not teach him what is right At best, they are not fun for your dog, and at worst they can cause your dog to act aggressively and even bite you. Positive training methods should always be your first choice. "They continue to comment on the special collar surprise:" The most humane and most controversial use of the shock collar is as a training tool.The trainer can surprise the dog remotely via remote control. greater for abuse (shipping guncanga n as a punishment) or abuse (bad shock time). Your dog can also associate painful surprises with other people or experiences, leading to frightening or aggressive behavior ".
NCAE (Norwegian Council on Animal Ethics) "recommends introduction of training of electrical prohibition and similar electronic or remote controlled electronic devices that cause inconvenience to your dog but should be given exceptions for training by authorized persons to prevent the hunting of animals and animals wild. "
APDT (Association of Professional Dog Trainers) says, "[Electronics] training bags should not be used by novice dog owners or by trainers who are not properly instructed in their use.The use of electronic training collars can lead to trauma to your dog and is generally not recommended by strengthening trainers positive ".
The AVSAB (American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior) has produced a position statement entitled "The use of punishment for behavior modification in animals", an opening paragraph that reads "AVSAB positions are punishment (eg choke chains, pinch collars, and electronic collars should not be used as first-line treatment or early use for behavioral problems. This is due to potential side effects including but not limited to: learning inhibition, increased fear-related and aggressive behavior, and injury to animals and people interacting with animals. "
Praise
In his 2005 textbook on training and behavior, Steven Lindsay writes, "Instead of instilling social aversion and anxiety... animal and human research supports the notion that competent shock training [collars] appears to promote social, security, and reward impacts positive ones that can be provided and strengthened through loving petting and compelling praise. The large amount of scientific evidence suggests that [outer electrical stimulation/avoidance and pain reduction should promote long-term effects that are incompatible with fear and stress, making the trainer a significant object of extrinsic rewards that really enhance dog welfare through increased capacity to cope, learn, and social adaptation ". Steven Lindsay states: "If minimizing the intensity, duration, and frequency of hostile stimuli during training is recognized as an important factor in the definition of human dog training, radio-controlled e-collars should be classified as one of the most humane dogs - training tools currently available"
The only organization that has control over the sale and use of a shock collar publicly is The International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP). The challenge is based on concerns about restrictions on freedom; "The Professional Association of Dogs (IACP) strongly opposes laws that prohibit or restrict the use of humane training tools, saying it is our belief that limiting the use of humane training tools would result in higher incidence of malicious dogs and disorders, and more dogs are handed over to overcrowded public shelters.... Dog training is a very diverse field with a single thread: communication Dogs are trained for many different tasks such as helping people with disabilities, police work, herding, hunting, protection, competition and friendship Professional trainers achieve this training objective by using a variety of tools to communicate with dogs, both in close proximity, and distance... Effectively, this communication improves the desired behavior and reduces the incidence of problem behaviors in dogs... Seti ap attempts to ban or restrict the use of training tools will hamper this communication, and our ability to train dogs will suffer. Working dogs can no longer achieve very specific tasks, and families with pet dogs will have fewer options available to correct behavioral problems.... Training tools, when used properly, safely and humanely ".
Public control
The use of surprise collars is prohibited in Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Germany, and in some parts of Australia, including New South Wales and South Australia
According to (BBC, 2018) Scotland places a surprise collar ban. There was a petition signed by 20,000 people agreeing with the ban saying that shock collars are inhumane and ineffective as a training device. Further claims of collar cause unnecessary suffering and the potential for permanent damage to their personality is also made. Animal rights groups have been pushing in Britain as well to ban these collars. Fines up to 2,000 pounds have been awarded for dogs that have just put them on in some of the countries listed.
On March 24, 2010, the Welsh Assembly voted to ban the use of surprise collars in Wales. Currently this country is the first and only constituent country in the United Kingdom to do so. This prohibition is opposed by Petsafe, the manufacturer of this device, and the Electronic Collectible Producers Association, on the grounds that it violates Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The challenge did not work.
Legal case involving shock collar
The potential shock collar to have a negative impact on behavior has been recognized by the British courts. In 2001 Ostarra Langridge was tried after one of his dogs attacked and killed a Shih Tzu while walking. Control orders, rather than destruction orders, are imposed when a judge receives a defense that the dog's aggressive behavior is caused by the effects of the shock collar. "Ms. Langridge requested the help of a behaviourist when her dogs began to flee from her on their walks along the beach.The dogs were given a shock necklace, which Miss Langridge was told to last for three months and activate each time they did but the first time the dogs got a surprise was a mistake, after a little dog they passed made Miss Langridge's leap.Since then his pets hooked the shocks with the little dogs and became afraid of them.When Miss Langridge described the day in July when his dogs lit Shih Tzu, his tears dripped. "He stated" "They connect the pain of electric shock with the little dog because I first used the collar. On the day the machine arrived at this house, I regretted it. "
On April 11, 2011, a 48-year-old man from Ogmore-by-Sea became the first person to be punished for the use of an illegal shock collar in Wales. He was then fined £ 2,000 and valued Ã, £ 1,000 for court fees.
References
- Lindsay, Steven R. (2000), Handbook of Applied Dog and Training Behavior , 1 , Blackwell, p.Ã, 136 .
- Schilder, Matthijs B.H.; van der Borg, Joanne A.M. (2004), "Training dogs with the help of surprise collars: short and long-term behavioral effects", Applied Animal Science , 85 (3-4), p. Ã, 319-334, doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.10.004 < span> . Lindsay, Steven (2005), Applied Dog Handbook Vol 3, , Blackwell, pp. 557-633 .
- Polsky, RH (2000), "Can aggression be inflicted through electronic pet storage systems", Applied Welfare Science Journal of Science , 3 (4), pp.Ã, 345-357, doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0304_6 .
- Schalke, E.; Stichnoth, J.; Ott, S.; Jones-Baade, R. (2007), "Clinical signs caused by the use of electrical training collars in dogs in daily life situations", Applied Veterinary Science , 105 (4), p.Ã, 369, doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.002 .
Andelt, W., Phillips, R., Gruver, K., & amp; Guthrie, J. (1999). Coyote Predation on Domestic Sheep Adverse Electronic Dog Training Collar. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 27 (1), 12-18. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783933
Hawley, J., Rossler, S., Gehring, T., Schultz, R., Callahan, P., Clark, P., & amp; Wydeven, A. (2013). Developing a new Collar-Collar Design for Safe and Efficient Use of Wild Wolf. Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011-), 37 (2), 416-422. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/wildsocibull2011.37.2.416
Hawley, J., Gehring, T., Schultz, R., Rossler, S., & amp; Wydeven, A. (2009). Rating Shock Collars as Nonlethal Management for Wolves in Wisconsin. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 73 (4), 518-525. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40208400
Nolan, P. (2011). Companion Compliance Dog Training With Electronic Collars. Retrieved 12 February 2018, from https://www.amazon.com/Companion-Obedience-Training-Electronic-Collars-ebook/dp/B0063AC7HA
Overall, K., Dr. (2005, 06 December). Open letter from Dr. Karen Overall regarding the use of surprise collars. Retrieved 12 February 2018, from http://www.joelwalton.com/shockcollars.html
Scotland to ban the dog's collar an electric shock. (2018, 28 January). Retrieved 5 March 2018, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42807728 Overall, K., Dr. (2005, 06 December). Open letter from Dr. Karen Overall regarding the use of surprise collars. Retrieved 12 February 2018, from http://www.joelwalton.com/shockcollars.html
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments