Dog training - use of handheld remote-controlled training devices (e-collars): report

Appendix II - Responses to SAWC Dog Training Working Group, Electronic Collars Survey – February 2022

1. What behavioural challenges are e-collars used for? In your experience are cases referred by veterinary surgeons? What proportion?

ABTC

The ABTC's code of conduct prohibits the use of e-collars or any device that emits an aversive stimulus Therefore none of our practitioners use them for any reasons.

ECMA

As a global trade association for the manufacture and supply of electronic training aids (ETAs) - handheld remote electronic collars, electronic containment systems and bark-control collars. ECMA™ do not directly refer or receive behaviour cases. All ECMA™ members' products meet the latest technical requirements, which enable efficient and effective training while protecting and promoting animal welfare. All members' user guides use the ECMA™ Code of Practice as a reference, providing consistent instructions for effective training techniques while protecting animal welfare. This information is available on our website here: -

http://ecma.eu.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Training-with-an-Electronic-Remote-TrainingSystem-EN.pdf

ECMA™ is committed to improving the quality of lives of pets while protecting animal welfare. The ECMA™ welcomes debate surrounding robust scientific evidence with a view to constantly improving the effectiveness and safety of our products.

In the State of Victoria (Australia), a tried and tested welfare-focussed regulatory model has been in place for over 10 years, having been agreed between ECMA™ and relevant stakeholders. This model involves veterinary input. It was recently reviewed (2020) and deemed fit-for-purpose.

Lez @ Trained For Life

Behavioural issues that I have in the past used a remote spray collar for are recall issues, as a way of interrupting the behaviour in order to gain the dogs attention back on the owner.

The spray collar is also an excellent deterrent in relation to counter surfing and coprophagia.

In the past I would say that approximately 80% of my behaviour cases have been under veterinary referral.

Roddy Kirk

E-Collars are used to reinforce the welfare of dogs giving them a better more fulfilled life.

A remote collar can be used for a variety of issues, from a deaf dog to an aggressive dog and everything in between. Most commonly a remote collar is used to communicate with the dog at a distance from their owner. The remote collar guarantees clear and concise communication even with real life distractions.

An ecollar doesn't also have to be used for any challenging behaviour. The tool is simply allowing you to communicate with the dog. A remote collar is firstly a reinforcer and is used to activate a dog, not deactivate or punish, to think otherwise is not only factually incorrect but shows ignorance of the tool.

For behavioural issues where welfare is concerned then you would need to consult a behaviourist as opposed to a vet. Vets have no knowledge or expertise when it comes to remote collars and dog training in general.

Jamie Penrith @ Take The Lead

i) The determinants governing the professional, ethical inclusion or omission of an electronic collar extend beyond simply that which we might consider to be a 'behavioural challenge'. As with anything else, we must appreciate breed (traits), heritage, individual learning history, owner requirements and capabilities, choice of equipment, the context/s in which the behaviour presents and more importantly, the probability of inclusion improving the existing state of affairs not simply for the dog, but the family, the community and other animals affected or likely to be affected by the behaviour of the dog. As well we know, the welfare effects of an act or failure to act are not limited to those experiences of the single animal under our legal care, certainly not where the behaviour of that animal is known or likely to impact negatively or critically on the welfare of others. Consequently, from an animal welfare perspective, we should be guarded against seeing a definitive list of 'behavioural challenges' as either accurate or beneficial. Proactively preventing depredation by dogs towards other, equally protected, deserving and sentient animals in a controlled, structured and proven manner is unarguable from a genuinely objective animal welfare perspective. When we assume control of an opportunistic predator, it is incumbent upon us from an ethical and legal perspective to do so with full recognition, responsibility and accountability. When we account for the fact that those animals seen as prey from our dogs' perspective may belong to an endangered species or to owners whose livelihoods depend upon their protections, then any argument against taking every responsible course of action to prevent potential attacks becomes weaker still. Where scientific research has repeatedly shown that the responsible inclusion of electronic collars stops depredation by canids efficiently, effectively and for extended periods of time between evaluations without significant lasting harm to either species, then such arguments are revealed to be emotively, ideologically, financially and ultimately politically motivated, devoid of legitimate 'animal welfare' substance [1]. I have personally worked directly with over two thousand companion and working dogs. I specialise only in education, training and behaviour modification regarding canine predatory prevention and control and increasing off-lead reliability in high-drive dogs. The nature of my area of specialism means that I work exclusively with dogs that pose - or have proven themselves - a serious threat to the safety and freedoms of both themselves and other species. The owners who work with me have already effectively passed through a filtration system of alternative tried and failed advice and approaches. Consequently, the electronic training collar – in conjunction with beneficial aspects of existing procedures – proves invaluable in providing clear and consistent communication in productively taking these dogs forward. The owners who work with me are committed, conscientious, often cautious and always compassionate. They travel from all over the United Kingdom (and beyond), often incurring substantial cost and inconvenience to ensure that they are doing everything humanly possible to provide and promote the protections and freedoms of their dogs and other animals. I feel that it would be highly beneficial to direct the SAWC to the current results of an ongoing survey conducted by the Association of Responsible Dog Owners (joinardo.com). This is the largest survey of its kind. It is not aimed purely at animal professionals or based upon the 'opinion' of dog owners, but at dog owners with actual, direct experience of using electronic collars with their dogs. Latest (unpublished) results show the number of responses to be close to 1,500 together with some 90+ pages of owner-provided additional free text covering history, justification, inclusion and outcome. A synopsis of the results follows: The majority (70%) of respondents are experienced owners, having over 10 years ownership behind them. Almost 1/3 (28%) of dogs have come from rescue centres, suggesting that the problem behaviour was inherited as existing and unresolved. 41% of respondents used an ETA to address chase (predatory behaviour), with a further 32% using an ETA to address failing to come when called. 73% of respondents used/using an ETA for off-lead reliability – providing for behavioural needs, safely. 57% of respondents had already undertaken alternative training to attempt to resolve the problem behaviour, with 34% of those having already tried a 'rewardonly' trainer. Only 3% of respondents have used a veterinary referred behaviourist, suggesting that such professionals have little direct experience of working with the problem behaviours concerned and almost no experience of working with electronic training aids. 75% of respondents used their ETA under supervision with 84% of respondents combining reward training with ETA use. 41% of respondents believe that without the ETA inclusion, their pet would have been confined for life. 41% of respondents believe that the inclusion of an ETA prevented the death of their pet or another animal. 92% of respondents state that the inclusion of the ETA resolved their problem behaviour. 99% of respondents state that there were no negative effects.

ii) The answer depends upon the individual veterinary surgeon. When it comes to matters of effective/appropriate training and behaviour modification, a great many vets are in no better position than a general pet owner to advise on matters involving the inclusion of electronic collars. Like other members of society, many vets are as susceptible to advising based on personal beliefs and/or prejudice rather than direct experience and diligent, objective research. I have trained and advised several individual vets far more veterinary nurses on the use of electronic collars for controlling predation and enhancing recall and in their own dogs, together on occasion with addressing pica and self- injurious obsessive compulsions. I lectured on electronic collars before several University of Nottingham veterinary students along with Dr Cooper (Lincoln). The feedback was overwhelmingly positive with students explaining that their studies didn't cover training or behaviour modification in any depth. Many vets will use and/or 'privately' endorse the use of electronic collars - particularly for preventing or deterring livestock/wildlife attacks – but sadly, they are reluctant to admit this publicly. 'Professional suicide" is a term I have heard from members of the veterinary profession. "I completely agree with their responsible use, but I cannot say so publicly" is another. Veterinary referral for electronic collar use would go against the official BVA position statement which is to oppose their use. This is peculiar as the BVA is 'science led', however no science whatsoever confirms the efficacy of alternatives to electronic collars for reliably instilling avoidance through aversion between canids and prey animals. This has been confirmed by Defra (England) in November 2021.[2] Defra also state that "The best proven method of preventing a dog from attacking livestock is to keep the dog on a lead when exercising around other animals." I know of no confirmatory scientific studies to confirm this statement. As I type this response, I have just been contacted by the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Officer about an owner who's on lead dog has just pulled him from his feet, knocking him out for 10 minutes as his head struck the floor. His dog proceeded to attack and kill a nearby sheep, the owner is awaiting a scan in hospital [3] The ARDO survey results provides the following data regarding veterinary referrals: "Only 3% of respondents have used a veterinary referred behaviourist, suggesting that such professionals have little direct experience of working with the problem behaviours concerned and almost no experience of working with electronic training aids."

Patricia Bowerbank @ Bow Wow Know How

The 100 level sophisticated ecollar is used to communicate with the dog and is used to teach a behaviour or stop a behaviour, so dogs and owners who benefit use the collars to prevent:

• dogs chasing/attacking sheep
• dogs attacking other dogs
• Chasing cats
• attacking/biting people including family members
• running away and running across roads
• chasing wildlife
• barking/chasing horses
• barking in the home, causing a nuisance with neighbours
• resource guarding food, toys and people
• pulling on the leash

Used as a communication tool it can teach dogs:

• to learn to relax
• build confidence
• communicate better with their owner
• enjoy off leash control and recall

In your experience are cases referred by veterinary surgeons? Proportion?

Around 50% of my referrals come as a result of vets speaking to my clients.

Deaf Dog Network

We do not permit or engage in posts on e-collars on the Deaf Dog Network and actively monitor and edit posts where they are mentioned in responses, however the list of queries/behaviour challenges that people have sought advice for on their use includes (posts are seen before being allowed or declined):

• I have new deaf puppy and people have said I need an e-collar
• Puppy toilet training
• Getting their attention
• Recall
• Separation anxiety
• Barking
• Jumping up
• Playing rough with other dogs
• Chasing – dogs, cats, squirrels, bikes, joggers etc
• Obsessive behaviour – lights, shadow chasing
• Older dogs becoming hard of hearing and walks

These are all owner/guardian raised questions, no veterinary referral although we have had DDN members advised to use e-collars by their veterinary surgeon.

2. What is the range of training methods used before an e-collar is used? Is this always the process?

ABTC

ABTC practitioners do not use e-collars at any point in the training and behaviour modification process. Appropriate use of reward produces more reliable results without compromising animal welfare

ECMA

ECMA™ would always recommend that where possible owners seek supervision from a suitable, competent supervisor prior to the inclusion of an ETA. Where appropriate, this trainer can then determine whether the dog requires veterinary examination to rule out possible medical factors which might be contributing to undesirable behaviour. Clearly this isn't always the case, such as when dogs chase or attack other animals. ETAs should complement pre-existing training efforts with a focus on reinforcing desired behaviours and working with a competent supervisor greatly increases success rates whilst minimising the potential for improper use.

Handheld ETA's can be used for: -

• Enhancing essential obedience skills where 'reward-only' training has broken down or failed.
• Electronic collar training is best incorporated into existing training programmes to compliment the use of rewards.
• Off-lead control in challenging situations, especially recall where the dog has shown a preparedness to ignore commands associated purely with owner-delivered rewards.
• Management of a variety of behavioural problems, including chasing.
• Elderly, infirm, or disabled owners who have difficulty controlling and providing for the exercise needs of their dog their dog purely with leads or other restraints.
• Otherwise physically capable owners with strong or unruly dogs that have proven difficult to manage.

Lez @ Trained For Life

I wouldn't automatically use a remote spray collar for recall, rather I would take the dog on a longline first. If the owner is struggling with a line, either because of age or because the dog is simply too strong for the owner, then a collar would be used. I have used combination of spray collar and line to work with sheep chasers, however, in severe cases the dogs have been referred to an e-collar (shock) trainer.

Roddy Kirk

This is a very open question and very much depends on the dog in front of you, the process is simple, you work the dog in front of you and you use your knowledge to asses which training tool the dog will respond to most positively.

Simply a remote collar is layered on top of a command that a dog has already been taught to full proof that command. Therefore you can use the remote collar in any type of training to smarten up or increase the understanding between the owner and the dog.

The common misconception and lie is that dogs are and should be trained with purely positive reinforcement. The phraseology is firstly factually and scientifically not possible and certain tools ie. Remote collar are labelled as an aversive or punisher, which is also not correct.

97% of my clients have been to a form of so called force free or positive reinforcement training before coming to myself and 100% of the time it has not helped the owner in real life situations and has made the dog and owner confused.

Jamie Penrith @ Take The Lead

As per (1) above, the responsible inclusion of an electronic collar is based upon consideration of multiple factors and is not limited to simply to 'what methods have been used before'. Where an owner lives in a rural location with a dense livestock population and they have concerns that their dog might find opportunity to worry or attack those animals that they would like to address, then the responsible use of an electronic collar would be justified as satisfying the ethical and legal criteria of being justified in rapidly establishing avoidance between the dog and the livestock animal in a controlled setting. When weighted against the potential possible/probable alternative outcomes of livestock worrying offences, sheep killed or dog shot and suffering, veterinary destruction or abandonment, then a few seconds of momentary, stark discomfort in order to form a healthy pattern of avoidance towards a lifethreatening stimulus is proportionate and would not constitute 'unnecessary suffering' since: "the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as the purpose of benefiting the animal, or the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d) whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person." The failure to permit such preventative action however, especially when the alternatives are known, could meet the criteria for prosecution for a S4 AWA 2006 offence: "An act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c) the animal is a protected animal, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary." I would urge members of the SAWC to refrain from seeing conventional training approaches and the inclusion of electronic collars as being mutually incompatible. The ARDO data reveals that "84% of respondents combine reward training with ETA use" meaning that it is inaccurate to view the electronic collars inclusion as distinct from alternatives. In general, electronic collars are advisory under such circumstances where: The behaviour represents a threat to the safety and freedoms of dog, the family or the community. The behaviour represents a threat to third party animals. Alternative approaches to communicate requirements/resolve the issue/s have proven unsuccessful or have resulted in a worsening of the threat posed. Alternative approaches to communicate requirements/resolve the issue have been dismissed as inappropriate due to physical capabilities (disability, age, illness or injury) or contextual constraints (living in direct proximity to unavoidable behaviour triggers).

Patricia Bowerbank @ Bow Wow Know How

• Basic obedience (Place, Door work, sit, down, heel or back, recall, back up, out/drop)
• The development of leash pressure
• Understanding of body language
• Duration work
• body positioning
• spatial pressure
• Terminal and Intermediate marker exercises
• Free shaping
• Trick training
• Agility
• Energy and relaxation work
• Clicker Training
• with the use of food rewards
• Confidence building using a variety of games and obstacles

All these methods are used to create improved communication and relationships between owners and their pet.

This is always the process.

Deaf Dog Network

Often none and this speaks to our main concern wherein a dog being deaf or hard of hearing is often automatically linked to the use of e-collars, with some (more commonly DDN group members overseas, particularly the USA) recommending them as an essential piece of kit for a new deaf pup/dog as you might a harness or bed. We are also concerned to see that people seeking to justify the use of e-collars will cite deaf dogs without the knowledge or experience of living and training them.

3. What risk does a dog pose and / or what is the risk to the dog or others if an e-collar isn't used?

ABTC

This question is unclear, as clearly the risk a dog poses is determined by a wide range of individual factors. It is extremely unlikely that these risk factors would be significantly mitigated by the use of an e-collar. The risk in using punitive devices is that they will aggravate the target behaviour increasing the risk to all concerned.

ECMA

As per the information provided in 2 (above), risk potential is determined in accordance with social expectations, legal obligations, and the individual animal/context. It is not possible to provide a single, cover-all answer to the question asked.

Typically, risks to the individual dog and other people or animals includes: -

• Death of healthy dogs having been shot by a livestock keeper.
• Death of healthy dogs by a veterinarian following livestock worrying.
• Death of healthy dogs following a court destruction order under various laws, such as S3 offences under the DDA 1991, the Protection of Livestock Act 1953 and S2 Dogs Act 1871.
• Avoidable death or serious injury to livestock animals, companion animals (cats/dogs) or wildlife resulting from unresolved chasing/failing to come when called using reward-based training.
• Substantial loss of income to livestock keepers.
• Veterinary destruction of healthy dogs for unclassified 'undesirable behaviour' which has proven intractable following reward-based training
• Dogs being surrendered/abandoned/rehomed due to resolvable behaviours such as chasing other animals, people or vehicles, reactivity/lunging on lead, failing to come when called, excessive barking or over-excitability due to prolonged lead confinement.
• Lifelong confinement to leads and inadequate exercise.
• Owner prosecution under animal control laws.

Lez @ Trained For Life

If a dog has an out of control prey drive then the risk to other animals and the dog itself is immense. The dog could kill livestock or other animals, be legally shot by a farmer, be killed on the road and cause other road users to be injured or killed. The alternative would be to either keep the dog on lead for the rest of its life, assuming the owner has sufficient control and wherewithal to be able to walk the dog on lead, or destroy the dog.

Roddy Kirk

This questions is too broad and general to be able to know best how to answer. What I will say is whenever a remote collar is being used on a dog, what is guaranteed is the risk that that dog may have had towards themselves being hurt, or others being hurt, whether live stock or other dogs or humans or traffic or whatever it may be, that risk is significantly reduced if the dog is remote collar trained.

Jamie Penrith @ Take The Lead

Again, the question seeks to find specifics whereas working with animals is very often anything but specific. There are too many variables to consider if I am to provide an answer of genuine value. What I will say is that yesterday, within my local area a 4yr old healthy GSD was destroyed by a vet for escaping a gate left ajar by a delivery driver and attacking a sheep in the neighbouring field. I can also confirm that the healthy Doberman in the image at the foot of this response will also be destroyed. Two pregnant ewes have also unnecessarily lost their lives. I receive approximately 10-15 written requests for help to prevent dogs from attacking other animals every single day. In over 70% of those cases, the dogs have already chased/worried/attacked/killed other animals or chased traffic/runners/trains etc. Of those 70%, I would estimate that whilst they might have financially compensated a farmer, less than 2% have reported the incidents to the police or a farming stakeholder. Estimates based on actual reported attacks stand at 15,000 per year in the UK. Based on a vast amount of personal experience and data received, I would suggest that you could multiply that figure tenfold and still consider your estimate to be conservative. The only incentive people have to report attacks by dogs on livestock or protected animals is one of moral duty – of compassion. The default response from governments is to increase punishments for coming forwards. There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for a dog owner to report an offence that will see them heavily punished, socially ostracised and a strong likelihood of their healthy dog being killed. The logic is backwards. It is not 'attacks' that you will prevent, but admissions. Retaining access to quality electronic collars under supervised tuition encourages owners to come forward and self-refer, rather than remain silent and leave the risk of further attacks unresolved. Dogs do not recognise laws, read signs or respect social norms. Dogs do not act with morality or reflect with remorse. Dogs simply do what they choose to do, and given the slightest opportunity to do it, they will. A dog determined to chase/attack another animal does not respect fences, hedgerows, roads, rivers or railways. They can detect prey animals well over half a mile away, which is why so many owners "didn't know the animal was even there" and why relying purely on leads has repeatedly failed for the past 40 years. The only thing that will stop a dog from chasing another animal is changing the dog's own desire to do so. And this is EXACTLY what e-collar training does. Efficiently, effectively and ethically. An electronic collar is scientifically (see references below) and empirically proven to provide an incredibly beneficial additional means of addressing the problem of dogs failing to come when called when giving chase to prey animals, and the only proven means of instilling active avoidance via aversive association towards protected/vulnerable/life threatening stimuli.

Patricia Bowerbank @ Bow Wow Know How

For dogs that have the ecollar to stop or prevent a dangerous behaviour such as biting, attacking, being run over in every day to day task. The risk to the dog is:

death, injury, escalation of behaviour or the having to be put to sleep/adopted out where the risk is passed onto another family.

The risk to others: injury, death. (through road accidents, attacks on family members, other dogs and owners, livestock and wildlife).

Deaf Dog Network

From the DDN perspective, none if the guardians of the dog seek and follow other training methods preferably with support and guidance from an individual on the ABTC practitioner registers.

4. Please describe the range of equipment used including make and model. Please describe how it is used, including frequency of use, duration etc

ABTC

N/A

ECMA

Electronic training products fall into 3 main types: -

• Containment fences
• Remote training
• Bark Control

Containment fences

Containment fences protect an animal's freedom to roam within a safe area (such as your garden) without the risk of escaping. Animals escaping from gardens are frequently run over by cars, or cause road accidents. Fences consist of a transmitter mounted inside the house, connected to a loop of wire within which the animal will be contained. The animal wears a receiver collar which listens for the signal from the boundary. The collar emits a series of "beeps", warning the animal to stop. If the animal ignores the beeping and goes to the boundary, the collar emits a mild aversive stimulus. The level of stimulus is variable and is set to the minimum level necessary for the animal. Very quickly, the animal associates the beep with the aversive stimulus and learns to stay within the boundary of the safe area. Once this is learnt, the animal responds to the beep alone and does not receive the aversive stimulus.

Bark Control

Nuisance barking can result in problems with the neighbours, or even with local noise authorities. Dogs are frequently re-homed (sometimes many times) due to excessive barking. Bark control collars detect excessive barking and respond by delivering a beep followed by a mild aversive stimulus. The dog quickly learns to associate excessive barking with the beep and the aversive stimulus and nuisance barking stops.

Remote trainers

Remote trainers allow pets and owners the freedom to go on walks safely. without a lead. Untrained dogs can take it upon themselves to chase other dogs, cats, cars, bikes, wildlife, or farm animals with catastrophic results. In these situations, it is very difficult to get the dog's attention with treats.

Following a period of training during which the dog is taught to become fluent in understanding the behaviour required to remove and avoid the stimulation from the collar, the remote trainer allows the owner to reach out to the dog while it is in full flight and break into its concentration. This product is unique. Nothing else exists that is capable of providing clear, instant, and consistent communication to the dog through associating unpleasant consequences with dangerous behaviours.

This can save the lives of people, domestic, wild and farm animals. The owner carries a small transmitter which communicates with the collar worn by the dog. The owner can send signals to the collar which responds with either just warning beeps, or a predetermined, appropriate aversive stimulus which follows a known command (such as a whistle). The level of the stimulus is adjustable and can be set to the minimum level necessary to suit the animal's nature and the situation. Very quickly, the dog learns to associate the recall signal or a given aspect of the environment – such as a sheep - with the aversive stimulus and so learn to respond or avoid, thereby successfully controlling the presentation of the electronic stimulus.

Lez @ Trained For Life

Masterplus Pro Remote Dog Training Collar. Long spray (three seconds).

Roddy Kirk

There are a number of world leading brands that may be used, these are but not limited to:

Ecollar Technologies, Dogtra, Garmin, Sport Dog, Chameleon. In general the mini educator from Ecollar Technologies, tends to be the best remote collar to use for pet dog training.

There are hundreds of videos on my youtube channel and many other places showing exactly how the remote collar is used.

I would also happily demonstrate this for the committee, which would be the best way forward.

Jamie Penrith @ Take The Lead

There is a variety of electronic training equipment available, from remote activated sound to spray collars, vibration to static pulse. They can be automated or manually operated, including boundary fencing, bark control or handheld units designed to assist the dog in understanding essential safety commands. As technology advances, so too do the range of available products. Electronic fencing systems are moving to geo-fencing, where boundaries have become 'virtual' and – along with the stimulation level delivered by the collar - are specified by the owner via a handheld 'app'. This technology has also moved into the livestock market, where systems such as 'nofence'[4] are gaining a great deal of support amongst farmers and conservationists. Indeed, the distinct ethical division between the use of electronic pulse towards farm, zoo and wild animals is nothing if not glaringly apparent. Electric pulse to contain cattle and goats in a specified area to eat weeds is deemed a positive step in conservation [5], whereas a lesser version of the same pulse to stop dogs chasing and killing innocent animals is deemed cruel? One thing is common to all equipment and that is that from the dogs' perspective, the activation of the training collar is as a direct result of their own behaviour in response to a given/received signal or interaction with a specified aspect of their environment (sheep/deer/ground nesting birds etc). There is no difference whatsoever from the animals' perspective. I would like to give the question regarding "How it is used, including frequency of use, duration etc" the full answer that the SAWC deserve. In order to do so, could I please request/suggest that we arrange a meeting in which I can explain with absolute clarity, whilst answering questions from the commission that will undoubtedly arise? Simply providing a short, written response to that particular question is insufficient as there are so many nuances and variables to consider in order to ensure that animal welfare is maximised. This is something I arranged with Defra in December 2021 and it proved far more valuable to their decision making processes than written forms of responding.

Patricia Bowerbank @ Bow Wow Know How

The range of ecollars:

ET 300 mini educator by Ecollar Technologies around £235.00

Dogtra Arc by Dogtra around £278.00

The ET 3oo has 100 levels, if you were to put it on your skin you wouldn't feel any sensation until level 15 or more, sometimes it can be up at level 50 before people are aware of it. The sensation is a blunt stimulation. It is the same technology as a Tens Machine or a Slendertone abs belt.

I start my level off with every dog at 2, I describe this as so faint it's similar to closing your eyes and moving your open hand across and in front of your face, you can feel a shift in air.

I walk a dog on a 10 ft leash hold the end of the leash and turn back and forward, every turn I use the level 2 and tap the button after a few reps the dog becomes aware of the sensation and is encouraged with the leash to move to me. When working with any animal it is important to be aware that any unusual stimulation in their environment will cause them to move to the familiar such as their handler, thus we keep the dog moving whilst 'tuning' them into the ecollar. This exercise would last around 2 minutes then rest, let the dog absorb for around 10 to 20 minutes then repeat, I'd repeat about 3 times.

We would then go on a walk using 30ft long line where I had a hold of the end and when the dog moves forward and is interested in smells I call Meg come, put a little pressure on the line and press the level 2 on the collar, when the dog recalled they receive food/treat then I'd say Break and encourage the dog out again and repeat this for the whole of the walk.

The next session would involved using the basic obedience work and layering it with the level 2 on the ecollar e.g. using a raised bed, walk your dog to bed, about a foot in front of it say 'Place' and tap the ecollar whilst moving onto the place mat, then give food.

The layering of the level 2 on the verbal instruction allows the dog become used to the language and as they receive a food reward they associate the sensation with something positive, it's enjoyable.

Over a few sessions in order to proof the training I would take away certain prompts e.g. on the long line walk I'd take away any leash pressure and let the dog return on the verbal recall and level 2 ecollar prompt, then I'd drop the verbal and use the collar, if the dog is in heightened arousal because of scent or distraction I'd slowly dial up from 2 to 3,4,5, etc and introduce a verbal recall at which point the dog returns and receives food.

It is my experience that building a confident dog on ecollar language takes about 2 weeks, I do this in sessions over a period of time or in a block 2 to 3 week Board and Train session.

I have had owners and their dogs come up from England for Ecollar training because the dogs were attacking and chasing sheep and the owners (who have been using the ecollar at a level two for a number of months want guidance on using the ecollar correctly in intense situations. After a few hours of doing the above when we walk into our field of sheep with the dog on a secure line, they show interest but do not chase, the rolling up of the ecollar to a level the dog finds value in just turns them back to the owner for their reward...so chase, no major arousal simply giving people the ability to use neutral communication where the dog understands what the owner is looking for him or her to do.

Once the dog understands and has learnt the ecollar language it can be used where some dogs become nervous to help calm them, so a tap tap on a level 2 will reassure the dog that you are there with them, you are communicating with them, recall use is an everyday experience, not that your dog would ever be half a mile away but that is the reach on the ecollar or invisible leash as it's sometimes called. A dog becoming aroused by the energy of another dog can be tapped to again to offer reassurance for calm, dogs off leash where there could be trouble brewing, recall the dog, timing is important, using a low level to prevent an issue is better than waiting for a fight which you could break up with a high correction, the high levels are there just as your seat belt in you car is there, rarely if ever used but there if needed.

Deaf Dog Network

Not known, we do not allow or engage in posts about e-collars on the DDN.

5. How do you assess that e-collar use is necessary?

ABTC

The ABTC does not believe that the use of e-collars is ever necessary. The fact that our practitioners are regularly achieving good results, with happy dogs and owners supports this.

ECMA

ECMA™ would always recommend that where possible owners seek supervision from a suitable, competent supervisor prior to the inclusion of an ETA. Where appropriate, this trainer can then determine whether the dog requires veterinary examination to rule out possible medical factors which might be contributing to undesirable behaviour. Clearly this isn't always the case, such as when dogs chase or attack other animals and a competent supervisor is able to assess and advise on whether an ETA is necessary and appropriate for the individual dog and owner requirements. ETAs should complement pre-existing training efforts with a focus on reinforcing desired behaviours and working with a competent supervisor greatly increases success rates whilst minimising the potential for improper use.

Lez @ Trained For Life

As above

Roddy Kirk

The welfare of the dog and those it comes in contact with is always our top priority.

In general the most common use for a remote collar is used to communicate with the dog at a distance. For example, general recall, prey drive, chase drive. A remote collar is simply an attention grabber to the dog , much like a clicker or whistle or verbal command. What makes the remote collar for more successful is the fact that it has the ability to touch the dog, regardless of where the are, within reason of course. The key is in the teaching of what the blunt stimulation is and what does represent and how should the dog respond to it. This is all taught in the conditioning phase of training.

Jamie Penrith @ Take The Lead

As per (1), The determinants governing the professional, ethical inclusion or omission of an electronic collar are largely dependent on a case-by-case evaluation. Every dog is seen as a unique individual as is the context/requirement compound. As with anything else, we must appreciate breed (traits), heritage, individual learning history, owner requirements and capabilities, choice of equipment, the context/s in which the behaviour presents and more importantly, the probability of inclusion improving the existing state of affairs not simply for the dog, but the family, the community and other animals affected or likely to be affected by the behaviour of the dog.

Patricia Bowerbank @ Bow Wow Know How

It depends on the issue or training need. If the owner wants to stop a critical /risky behaviour that they are unable to with the leash, plethera of other tools, training, education, exercises listed above, the e collar is an option. Some dogs who are currently attacking the children in the household, wear a muzzle outside but become gradually worse, those dogs I'd identify as good candidates, dogs who run away, who have no recall, dogs who are pulling their owners so badly they can't walk them do benefit from the ecollar, so I show them the collar, tell them the price of the training and collar, let them use the collar on my own dog which has a huge impact, meeting my dog for the first time, taking her for an off leash walk and pressing the level 2 on her ecollar and having her return to them for her bit sausage, every time!

Deaf Dog Network

We do not believe they are necessary for any dog.

6. On what proportion of dogs that you work with are e-collars used? How many dogs do you work with annually?

ABTC

N/A

ECMA

N/A

Lez @ Trained For Life

Roughly 20%

Roddy Kirk

I have worked with nearly 17000 dogs in my career. I work with approximately 1500 dogs a year and 25% of those dogs will be remote collar trained.

The reality is when people want to better their relationship with their dog, when they have the dogs welfare at the for front of their mind, when they went others to be safe and have the best communication possible with their dog. These are those that use remote collars.

Jamie Penrith @ Take The Lead

I have worked with over 2000 dogs that either failed to come when chasing other animals, or dogs that have killed (or have the potential to attack and kill) other protected animals including livestock, cats, deer and birds. I work with hundreds of such dogs annually. This is hardly surprising when a RSPCA survey report reveals that 24% of dogs have chased livestock or wildlife, some 3 million dogs in the UK. Personally, I specialise only in education, training and behaviour modification regarding canine predatory prevention and control and increasing off-lead reliability in high-drive dogs. The nature of my area of specialism means that I work exclusively with dogs that pose - or have proven themselves - a serious threat to the safety and freedoms of both themselves and other species. The owners who work with me have already effectively passed through a filtration system of alternative tried and failed advice and approaches. Consequently, the electronic training collar – in conjunction with beneficial aspects of existing procedures – proves invaluable in providing clear and consistent communication in productively taking these dogs forward. Broadly speaking, the nature of my specialism requires me to provide the least invasive, most effective, most efficient, most scientifically studied and validated equipment as a means of causing the dog to choose to avoid specific animals such as sheep and to choose to respond instantly when called where safety is paramount. That equipment is the highest quality electronic training collar, and it is only ever used in order to provide freedoms secure protections and enhance the quality of life for the dog, other animals affected by the presence and behaviour of that dog, the family and the community in which they live. This entire situation in respect of electronic collars is based not upon evidence of animal abuse, indeed there isn't a single shred of evidence to support such accusations. In decades, there hasn't been a single prosecution for abuse or cruelty and the Kennel Club submission to the Scottish government consultation on electronic collars also confirmed in writing 'no evidence of abuse or misuse'. The 'issue' is based entirely on a hypothetical possibility - a manufactured fear of a problem that has never been shown to exist. What does exist however, is a year-on-year increase in horrendous attacks by uncontrolled, untrained dogs on sheep, wildlife and other dogs. Many of these dogs have failed to respond to reward training. Why would any government with a genuine interest in animal welfare choose to legislate on a possibility, yet ignore the horrific reality?

Patricia Bowerbank @ Bow Wow Know How

Around 50% are e-collar trained, It's difficult to calculate properly due to lockdowns and my partner's mum whom I help look after has Alzimers so this has affected the number in the last 2 years. Around 250 a year.

Deaf Dog Network

N/A

Additional Comments / Covering notes

ABTC

David Montgomery:

It is clear from the review that it remains the case that no animal welfare charities support the use of shock collars and neither do any responsible professional organisations representing trainers and behaviourists and neither does the veterinary profession. The only supporters are the manufacturers who stand to lose out financially in the case of a ban and those ill-informed trainers who do not understand the science behind animal learning as so clearly demonstrated by the person who wrote the ARDO response. The rambling explanation of learning theory seems to infer that these devices are categorised as negative reinforcers when in fact they deliver positive punishment.

I am reassured by your response but would like to point out that everyone that has seen the questionnaire has independently commented that it looks heavily biased towards the shock collar users.

Trustees:

Arguments presented in support of the use of punitive devices that deliver aversive stimuli in dog training are aimed at attempting to undermine ethical alternatives, they are based on misconceptions of the psychological principles involved in animal learning and mis-representation of the scientific terminology.

It is our strongly held view that there can be no justification for subjecting dogs (or any animals) to unnecessary pain and/or stress in order to modify their behaviour. Suitably educated and assessed practitioners will only employ more reliable, humane methods to achieve more dependable results.

Any training device that works on the basis of inflicting an aversive stimulus on the dog for not carrying out the handler's wishes and/or until they exhibit acceptable behaviour compromises the animal's welfare, subverts the human/animal bond, is unethical and illegal under the terms of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

ECMA

N/A

Lez @ Trained For Life

It is interesting that you refer to the remote device as an e-collar when the only e-collar that trainers refer to are shock collars; spray collars are just that as are vibration collars…

I don't use an E-collar (read shock collar) but have used a remote spray collar with non-smelling air – I don't use the citronella spray.

Although I don't use a 'shock' collar I would hate to see them banned. There are a great many trainers that can use them with finesse and incorporate them as part of a training protocol rather than them just being placed on the dog and the dog punished for misdemeanour; these trainers are helping owners with their wayward dogs enjoy freedom on walks whilst keeping dog and other animals safe. As such I would urge instead banning them from public sales and licencing them to trainers that are conversant in conditioning them effectively.

Would it be possible to be part of this working group please? As discussed previously with Andrew and Bev, I was very involved with working groups in England and wrote the National Occupational Standards for Dog Training & Behaviour on behalf of Lantra, and would like to continue to be involved now I live in Scotland.

Roddy Kirk

21/01:

Upon reading the email and in particular the questions, I must admit that the first thought that came to my mind was concern.

Either this committee has a biased view towards what a remote training collar is and does, or don't understand the tool at all.

Either way I strongly feel that meeting face to face or even on a zoom call would be beneficial to the committee. This would allow me to answer and explain in real time any welfare concerns with regards to remote collars.

That being said I will answer the questions as best I can.

Secondly, when looking at the committee I am wondering where the knowledge of training is? There is not one trainer on the committee and a number of representatives from the Dogs Trust, who clearly have their own agenda when it comes to remote collars. It concerns me that the committee will already have a biased view to this training aid. As well as a number of vets on the committee, where vets have no knowledge or training on remote training collars.

Again I would be delighted to provide knowledge on remote training collars to the committee.

25/01:

I do note that the members of the working group seem to be heavily weighted towards animal welfare and veterinary groups. It seems as though there would also be value in having an informed opinion in the group from those who work with the tool in question on a daily basis. It might also be valuable to hear the voice of those who struggle with unwanted behaviours from their dogs and how such a tool has impacted their lives.

The stance the ABDT takes in the matter of e-collars is akin to that of doctors prescribing opiates.

We recognise both the efficacy of the tool and the possibility of misuse. Therefore, value the opportunity to be involved in the discussion around sensible legislation to minimise misuse.

In a climate where "unwanted behaviour" is a one of the primary causes for the euthanasia of dogs [1] any tool which has a proven track record of stopping such behaviours is an important factor in stopping the need for such drastic action [2].
Not only for the welfare of the dogs themselves but also for the owners whose lives are deeply affected by trying to manage them.

Given the lack of expertise of the working group in training dogs using e-collars in the real world, I would like to invite the working group to see the way in which e-collars are used by trainers in a professional manner.

My aim would be to show that the value of an e-collar is not just to deliver a high-level correction (e.g. for preventing predation).

The e-collar is also very effective at low stimulus levels to help dog owners provide clear and consistent information to their dogs.

Having helped over 16000 dog owners, I know that giving dog owners the tools to build a great relationship with their dogs based on solid communication is the key to preventing more dogs being euthanised for unwanted behaviours.

This is clearly a key element for the welfare of all concerned and should not be overlooked.

My hope is that this will clear up any misunderstanding about the tool and its use. That will open the door for clear communication between our two groups.
At that point, I would be happy to answer the questions posed and try to get as many answers as possible from other members of the ABDT to help with the data collection.

Jamie Penrith @ Take The Lead

In closing, I would like to repeat my offer to meet with the SAWC in order to answer and clarify any and all points raised and to provide further information as required/requested. I am regarded a national lead figure on the responsible consideration/inclusion of electronic training collars for dogs, having studied the topic extensively from both theoretical and applied perspectives

Patricia Bowerbank @ Bow Wow Know How

N/A

Deaf Dog Network

The Deaf Dog Network is a group of people who aim to help deaf dogs and their guardians, wherever they are, whether they have experience of owning or training them, rescuing or fostering, primarily through a Facebook group. The DDN group is managed by a small group of Admin members, including the founder member Karen Lawe, and others with professional roles in behaviour and training as well as others with extensive deaf dog experience in the UK.

Underpinning the ethos of the group is this statement: The Deaf Dog Network does not support any form of physical punishment in the training of dogs. We do not endorse training methods using tools such as check/chains, prong collars, squirting water, shock collars and the like. We approve and support modern, science-based force and fear free training methods.

We would be happy to join any discussion meetings (virtually) if that would be helpful to expand on points of interest.

Appendix III - BVA and BSAVA Policy Statement

Introduction

BVA and BSAVA support and recommend positive training methods as the most effective training intervention for companion animals in terms of health, welfare and behavioural outcomes.^{1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13}

A strong voice for vets

Under the UK Animal Welfare Acts^14,15,16 humans responsible for animals must ensure that the animals under their care are protected from unnecessary pain, suffering, injury and disease. This includes unnecessary pain or suffering inflicted with inappropriate and aversive training methods or containment systems.¹⁷

We have concerns about the use of aversive training devices to control, train or punish dogs and cats. Aversive training devices include electric collars which are used as a means of punishing or controlling behaviour of companion animals is open to potential abuse and incorrect use of such training aids has the potential to cause welfare and training problems.

BVA and BSAVA position on electric pulse training collars used to deliver an electric shock in dogs and cats

BVA and BSAVA are calling for a complete ban on the sale and use of electric pulse training collars used to deliver an electric shock in dogs and cats in order to help protect animal welfare. Instead, we support and recommends positive training methods.

Electric pulse devices are sometimes used in dog and cat training as a form of punishment to prevent a dog or cat from repeating bad behaviour. Evidence demonstrates that positive training methods are the most effective training intervention for companion animals in terms of health, welfare and behavioural outcomes. Research has shown that the application of electric stimulus, even at a low level, can cause physiological and behavioural responses associated with stress, pain and fear. ^{1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13}

In light of the evidence, we have concluded that electric pulse collars raise a number of welfare issues, such as the difficulty in accurately judging the level of electric pulse to apply to a dog or cat without causing unnecessary suffering. ^{1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13}

Since 2010, The Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010 have made it an offence for a device capable of emitting an electric shock to be attached to a dog or cat in Wales. In addition, in 2018 Defra announced a ban on the use of electric shock collars for cats and dogs and the Scottish Government issued guidance making it clear that training that the use of aversive training devices, including electric collars, may constitute the offence of causing unnecessary suffering under the Animal Welfare Act (2006).

Defra's Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs also advises that 'good training can enhance a dog's quality of life, but punishing a dog can cause it pain and suffering … All dogs should be trained to behave well, ideally from a very young age. Only use positive reward-based training. Avoid harsh, potentially painful or frightening training methods'.

Recommendation 1: The UK Governments should bring into force a complete ban on the sale and use of electric pulse training collars for dogs and cats to protect animal welfare.

Recommendation 2: BVA and BSAVA support and recommend positive training methods as the most effective training intervention for cats and dogs in terms of health, welfare and behavioural outcomes.

BVA and BSAVA position on the use of electric containment systems for dogs and cats

We note a paucity of evidence examining the effectiveness and welfare impacts of the use of electric containment systems for dogs and cats in comparison to the evidence available regarding the use of electric shock collars. In light of this lack of evidence, we are not currently calling for a ban on the use and sale of electric containment systems (which use a collar to deliver a shock) for use on dogs and cats. We would strongly support the undertaking of further independent peer-reviewed research, including a comprehensive literature of existing evidence, to robustly assess the effectiveness of electric containment systems and their impact on animal welfare.

Until further research is conducted however, we do not support the use of buried or hidden electric containment fences for dogs and cats that require animals to learn where the boundary is positioned through successive shocks in the absence of any physical or geographical demarcation. Pending further research outputs, the UK Government should only allow the sale and use of electric containment systems for dogs and cats which are either visible or audible to these companion animals.

Further, the sale of electric containment fences should only be permitted through approved vendors who must provide:

• Adequate instructions on the safe and responsible use of electric containment fences
• Clear information regarding the potential negative impacts on animal welfare if used incorrectly, referencing an owner's duty to ensure that the animals under their care are protected from unnecessary pain, suffering, injury and disease as set out in the UK Animal Welfare Acts.

Recommendation 3: The UK Government should urgently commission independent, peer-reviewed research to robustly assess the effectiveness of electric containment systems and their impact on companion animal welfare.

Recommendation 4: Pending further research outputs, the UK Government should only allow the sale and use of electric containment systems for dogs and cats which are either visible or audible to these companion animals.

Recommendation 5: Pending research outputs, the Government should only allow the sale and use of electric containment systems for dogs and cats through approved vendors who adhere to required criteria.

Alternative aversive training methods

BVA and BSAVA recognise that alternative aversive training methods also have the potential to result in negative welfare outcomes eg. choke collars, choke chains and prong collars, as well as collars using a noise, vibration, ultrasonic sound or spray of water or citronella. As outlined above, we support and recommend positive training methods as the most effective training intervention for cats and dogs in terms of health, welfare and behavioural outcomes.

We note the current lack of research and evidence regarding the welfare implications of the use of other aversive methods of training and control which may be equally stressful for a dog. We recommend that further evidence is collected on their use and effectiveness.

Until further research is undertaken to robustly assess aversive training collars which do not deliver an electric pulse eg. anti-bark spray collars, BVA and BSAVA are calling for a code of practice, as well as the regulation of the sale of these devices and manufacturer's instructions, to ensure that the potential adverse effects of use are highlighted to animal owners and trainers.

Recommendation 6: Further research should be undertaken to robustly assess the effectiveness of collars which deliver an aversive stimulus other than an electric pulse eg. anti-bark spray collar systems and their impact on animal welfare.

Recommendation 7: In the parts of the UK where their use remains legal, BVA and BSAVA call for a code of practice, as well as the regulation of the sale of other collars which deliver an aversive stimulus, such as anti-bark collars and detailed manufacturer's instructions, to ensure that the potential adverse effects of use are highlighted to animal owners and trainer.