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

6. E-Collars and Ethics

Background

In discussion with stakeholders the Working Group recognised three main instances of e-collar use.

Scenario 1.

Routine use by trainers and owners for 'layering' on top of an already learnt command. In this case the stakeholders are the dog in training, the dog owner, the dog trainer, the seller and manufacturer of the e-collar, and other stakeholders, who may be affected by the dogs positive or negative behaviour. The goal is that dogs will benefit from increased wellbeing through closer communication with the owner, and that commands will be more effective.

Scenario 2.

Targeted use for prevention or correction of behaviours that the owner does not want, for example, jumping up, barking, destruction, etc.

Scenario 3.

Targeted use for prevention of predation. In this case the stakeholders are the predating dog, the dog owner, the dog trainer, the seller and manufacturer of the e-collar, the predated animal/person, (in the case of livestock predation) the keeper of the livestock, and other stakeholders, who may be affected by the dogs positive or negative behaviour.

Ethical perspectives

Opponents of e-collar use argue that they are harmful and unwarranted, and besides effective alternatives exist. Proponents of e-collars argue that whilst there are risks of poor welfare, misuse, and abuse in e-collar use, the outcome of e-collar use, e.g., superior control of livestock predation, warrants the risk of welfare harms.

Consequentialist ethics

A utilitarian approach may consider the positive and negative values of the outcomes of the use of e-collars. This approach analyses the net effect of pleasurable/good, and painful/bad effects on stakeholders, considering the severity, frequency, and likelihood of those outcomes, and considers which course of action provides 'the greatest good to the greatest number'.

In practical terms, this may be illustrated as a Harm-Benefit Analysis (HBA) of the likely harms that the animals will experience and the likely benefits to be delivered and then determine whether the likely harms to animals are justified by the benefits likely to accrue (Home Office, 2015).

Harms and benefits should logically be assessed relative to the alternative courses of action (or inaction). In this consequentialist ethical view e-collar use may be justified. if (and only if) they are a superior training tool to other methods. Widely used methods to train and/or control dogs, which do not rely on e-collar aids, include voice commands, whistles, clickers, and hand signals, secure enclosures and leads. Keeping a dog on a lead around livestock is not only a low-cost, easily applicable option, but is a legal requirement in many cases.

Quantification of both the benefits and harms of e-collar use is challenging, as the electric stimulus delivered in different scenarios is not of uniform intensity or frequency. Ethical constraints also limit the possibility of studying some of the risks of harm: Academic institutions' ethical committees are unlikely to approve application of significant electric shocks to dogs in order to mimic the effects of abuse or misuse. However, CAWC note that the onus should be on the proponents of e-collars to demonstrate that their use is 'at least as effective' as the alternatives, without causing significantly more harm than those alternatives (CAWC 2012). In 2012, CAWC stated that on utilitarian principles it is not possible to 'formulate an evidence-based argument' either for or against the use of EPTAs (e-collars) (CAWC 2012). However, using evidence (and, under CAWC's principle above its absence) published since then, HBA can allow us to assess the key outcomes.

Deontological ethics

Moral opposition to e-collar use may be based on the ethical position that it is wrong to cause (certain types of) harm to an animal. In particular:

• It might be thought that electric shocks are per se wrong to inflict.
• It might be thought wrong to cause significant pain that is not necessary for the benefit of the animal.

Our approach

In order to justify the harms of electric shocks, there should be positive evidence that their use is necessary to gain significant benefit to the dog (relative to other options). In the absence of that, the overall harms are likely to outweigh the benefits and the harm is itself not justified and therefore a wrong action.

Analysis of harms and benefits/justifications

E-collar use can harm dogs (relative to most alternatives) insofar as they:

• Prevent motivated behaviour
• May cause anxiety and cognitive changes
• Regarding scenarios 2 and 3 in particular, e-collars inflict repeated episodes of pain on dogs (which could be avoided or replaced with positive training methods or keeping dogs under other forms of control)
• Risk abuse or misuse and thus have the potential for severe (and unnecessary) pain in all scenarios ^[10]

The evidence presented to support e-collar use is:

Scenario 1:

• Anecdotal evidence of the benefit of layering, resulting in improved communication and thus an improved relationship with owners.

Scenarios 2 and 3:

Some scientific and anecdotal evidence that e-collars can reduce the incidence of problem behaviours/livestock predation. There is anecdotal evidence that this in turn may reduce the risks of relinquishment/euthanasia/RTA relative to other training methods, however supporting statistical evidence is not available.

E-collar use can harm and benefit owners insofar as there is:

Scenario 1:

• No scientific evidence of benefit or harm as there is an absence of published, peer-reviewed evidence that 'layering' is a necessary augmentation to learning in dogs.

Scenarios 2 and 3:

• No scientific evidence of better behaviour relative to other methods. Research published since 2012 has tended to find that e-collar use is not superior to reward-based training methods.
• No scientific evidence of benefit since there is no evidence that more effective in eliminating unwanted behaviour or reducing relinquishment/euthanasia than other methods.

Section summary

In all three scenarios, given the known and acknowledged risk of misuse and abuse of e-collars, the absence of published, peer-reviewed evidence that e-collars are necessary, and the availability of alternatives, there is insufficient ethical justification to permit their use.