The Problem with Shock Collar Training

 by  Saanvi Ganesh

Electronic shock collars have been around since the 1960s, when they were first used to train hunting dogs and were very high powered. However, similar more homemade methods have been around for decades. The collar is controlled remotely by the dog's owner and works by inflicting a shock of up to 6,000 volts for up to 11 seconds, every time the dog exceeds boundaries.

 

This amount of pain is inflicted after human judgement, which can easily be flawed or abused; a small, simple mistake can cause drastic and irreversible changes in a dog's behaviour. In 2001 Ostarra Langridge was prosecuted after one of her dogs attacked and killed a Shih Tzu whilst on a walk. A control order was imposed as the magistrates accepted the defence that Ms. Langridge's dog's aggressive behaviour was attributable to the effects of the shock collar. 

 

Langridge states that the cause of this savage attack was a misuse in the first trial of the shock collar: "The first time the dogs got a shock was by mistake, after a small dog they were walking past made Miss Langridge jump. From then on, her pets associated the shocks with small dogs", posing a threat not only to the creature, but other dogs and the general public as well.

 

Shock collars not only cause dogs to be unnecessarily aggressive, like the example above, but they can also cause dogs physical pains, cardiac problem and sever stress and anxiety. The BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association) provided a policy statement on the correct use of shock collars, stating that "to use them correctly requires detailed understanding of behaviour and its motivation". An untrained operator would not be able to achieve safe and reliable results, worsening the behavioural problem or causing new problems.

 

In 2004, Schilder and van der Borg conducted a study in order to compare the behaviour of police dogs that had been trained using a shock collar to those which had not. No shocks were administered during the test, but the dogs' behaviour was observed to investigate the log-term effects of aversive training. The study found that Group S (had shock collar training) displayed more indicators of stress-related behaviour, like panting, lip-licking, yawning and lower body posture, as well as more extreme indicators like yelping, squealing, snapping and avoidance.

 

The difference between the groups was more significant when the test was done on familiar ground with the same dog trainer(s), proving that the painful shocks received had an adverse long-term effect on the behaviours and personalities of the dogs. This suggests that using non-aversion techniques when training is better for the welfare of the animal.

 

However, there are some arguments for the use of shock collars, suggesting that fair use of shock collar training is very effective. But the description of 'fair use' is normative and can be argued different depending on the person. The regulations on the use of shock collars are different across the UK, Wales and Scotland have taken action and banned the use of shock collars and aversive training devices under the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010 act and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

 

In England, the government had announced that it is working towards a ban, however no regulations have been announced yet. It is crucial that the government announce regulations against aversive training to prevent an increase in animal cruelty due to shock collars. As long as other effective methods of training, not involving aversion training, are available, the use of shock collars should be banned.