BUT...today I found out that a friend has been suffering from Facebook Censorship Syndrome. If you haven't experience this, it is when the Power of the Zuckerberg Cabal decides that you have somehow offended the universe and must be punished. By revoking your ability to post. In this case my friend Victoria Stilwell has been blocked because she had the temerity to publish a respectful and well-researched piece on electronic fences and their problems.
So here is the post, by Victoria, published here so the Z-people can't block her.
I hope she gets this straightened out, but here we go. Cruise on over to Positively.com to this:
Victoria Stilwell Positively on Electric Fences
And if linking that to my blog doesn't get the Z-people to ban me too, here is a copy of the paper I wrote last fall about the effects of aversive training methods for my Forensic Animal Behavior class at UF. Please read this-granted, it is my take but it illustrates some of the issues.
AVERSIVE
TRAINING AS CRUELTY: FORENSIC BEHAVIOR EVALUATION IN DETERMINING EFFECTS OF +P
(AND –R) TRAINING IN DOGS.
FORENSIC APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOR
ESSAY FOR DR. R. LOCKWOOD AND DR. P. REID
(12/7/2014)
James W. Crosby
INTRODUCTION
Dog training methods and the
question of animal welfare have become issues of major concern for pet owners
and Applied Animal Behaviorists. The presence of trainers with marketable
programs and the questions-and problems-that these trainers can raise has
brought companion pet behavior widely into the public eye. The plethora of methods and the
dissemination of non-scientific information over social media has increased the
need for scientific evaluation of training methods and the effect of these
methods on the welfare of our canine companions. Owners and Behaviorists are both concerned
with the welfare of their charges, but there must be consideration for the
intended effect of training. The focus of both groups ultimately is behavioral
change. The owners want healthy, compliant companions. Are
some methods better than others? Are particular training methods effective and
humane?
Applied Animal
Behaviorists bring the ability to apply scientific scrutiny to claims and
methods. Scientific methods allow the assessment and quantification of the
efficacy of training methods, and a better ability to establish the line
between humane and cruel training tools.
THE
DIVIDE
A
large divide among trainers and owners currently involves the differentiation
between positive and aversive training methods. Are dogs to be treated as
sentient beings that deserve to be treated as companions and partners to their
human caretakers, or are they unformed, irascible clay in need of forceful
shaping to obey. Which
method-if either-will reliably produce results, and which method is humane?
Which method(s) produce well adjusted, physically and emotionally healthy
individuals?
Behavior can easily
be defined as simply whatever an organism does. Eat, sleep, feed, move-behavior
is simply what the organism is doing at any particular moment. Behavior has no
intrinsic moral value. Good and bad are human values overlaid on behavior.
Behavior is either productive or non-productive. Productive behavior results in
the organism being able to achieve a goal. Non-productive behavior fails to
achieve a goal. Productive behaviors are reinforced and, as such, remain. Non-productive
behaviors tend not to be reinforced and fade.
Additionally, behavior can be considered as normal or abnormal. Normal
behavior allows an organism to meet its needs.
In companion
canines, owners typically seek to produce behavior that allows them to coexist
at a level that the human is willing to at least tolerate, if not actually
solicit. Behavior training is the process of teaching the dog the difference
between appropriate or desired behavior and behaviors that are not wanted. This
can be for specific skills such as sit on command, fetch an object, or walking calmly
on a leash.
Dedalle (2103)
explains the different methods of behavior modification and training: “(the
method) can vary by their nature and occurrence: they can be the appearance or
disappearance of appetent or aversive stimuli. It follows that there are 4
types of instrumental conditioning procedures: 2 types result in an increase in
the rate of responses (positive reinforcement, R+: appearance of an appetent
stimulus; negative reinforcement, R−: disappearance of an aversive stimulus)
and 2 types result in a decrease (positive punishment, P+: appearance of an
aversive stimulus; negative punishment, P−: disappearance of an appetent
stimulus.”
This give us two
methods of training: reinforcement based, or positive methods, and aversive or
punishment based methods. Both of these methods can be used to either produce a
desired behavior or to reduce problematic behavior.
Hetts (1999)
provides a clear definition of positive reinforcement. “This outcome can be
defined as the occurrence or presentation of something pleasant immediately
following a behavior that will make that behavior more likely to occur in the
future.” This is most commonly seen in the use of food (a primary reinforcer)
to reinforce a behavior. A dog is cues to sit. The dog sits. A treat is
presented immediately upon producing the sit. The sit, if coupled often enough
with the reinforcer, becomes a more likely behavior upon the presentation of
the cue.
In training canines
there are a number of commonly used positive reinforcers:
Food
or treats
|
Sniffing
|
Physical
touch
|
Dog-dog
social contact
|
Direct
human attention
|
Verbal
marker
|
Toys
|
Complex
activity (problem solving)
|
Play
|
Learning
tasks
|
Free
activity or exercise
|
An alternative to
positive reinforcement is negative reinforcement. This involves the deprivation
of factors that the organism either desires or needs. Negative reinforcement
ranges from the fairly benign such as removing attention from a dog that exhibits
unwanted behavior or social isolation (a “time out”) to deprivation of
essential needs, such as the food deprivation regularly practiced in the
training of marine mammals.
Punishment based
training, on the other hand, is centered upon the idea that an organism will
act to avoid pain or unpleasant circumstances. An aversive stimulus is
presented to the organism that results in the reduction of the associated
behavior. The animal learns that the specific aversive stimulus is coupled with
the particular behavior. The targeted behavior becomes unsuccessful to the
organism, and the organism learns to avoid the behavior.
Punishment can also
be used to effect non-compliance to a cued behavior. The dog is cued to perform
a behavior (that it hopefully understands). The dog fails to comply, and as a
result a punisher is applied. The dog learns to comply to avoid the aversive
applied.
Common punishers
used in dog training include:
Verbal
command (NO!)
|
Pain
(prong collar)
|
Loud
noise
|
Electric
shock
|
Strike
|
Physical
force
|
Choke
|
“Alpha
Roll”
|
Punishment has a
substantial chance of unintended side effects. Trust and a positive
relationship is threatened by such methods. According to Overall (2007), “Such
tools ‘work’ by engendering fear, pain, and distrust, and in doing so they
cause long-term damage that make dogs more reactive, less trusting, and less
able to reach their full potential in their partnership with humans, no matter
what form that partnership takes. These are not my opinions: these are the
findings from the scientific literature, and this is an essential point.”
Other problem
issues arise in conjunction with the application of punishment to achieve a
behavior. In dogs, aggression directed towards another dog or directed towards
a human is particularly concerning.
“While on the issue
of dog training, one of the most practically significant findings found in this
research has to do with the effect that the type of training has on a dog's
risk of aggression. There have been a number of studies that have reported that
training procedures based on punishment can have negative consequences (Coren
2012). In this study the researchers defined such punitive training techniques
as including things like physical punishment (hitting the dog), verbal
punishment (shouting), electrical or citronella collars, choke chains and
jerking on the leash, prong collars, water pistols, electric fences and so
forth. Such punitive techniques apparently increase the risk of aggression in
dogs. They are associated with a 2.9 times increased risk of aggression to
family members, and a 2.2 times increased risk of aggression to unfamiliar
people outside of the household.” (Coren 2014)
Side effects of
punishment may include physical injury (Becker 2014). Whereas positive reinforcement also acts to
allow an organism to achieve its needs, punishment may interfere with the
ability of an organism to meet basic needs, at least on a short term basis.
SPECIFIC PUNISHMENT CONCERNS: PHYSICAL
PUNISHMENT
The effects of
using choke chain or prong collars may be immediately life threatening. Dr.
Karen Becker (2014) illustrates one possible outcome from the practice of
“hanging” a dog to correct problematic behavior in training.
“The owners of a 1-year-old German Shepherd
dog brought their pet into a veterinary clinic for incoordination (loss of
muscle coordination) and circling to the left behavior. The owners were honest
in admitting the dog had been "disciplined" a few hours earlier by
being suspended off the ground with a choke collar for almost a full minute.
When the owner lowered the dog to the ground, the poor animal was panicked and
soon lost consciousness.
At the veterinary hospital, a neurologic
examination uncovered severe disorientation and left-sided pleurothotonus, a
rare disorder in which there is prolonged and repetitive involuntary
contraction of muscles resulting in jerking, twisting and abnormal posturing.
Reflexes were reduced in all the dog's limbs, and he was blind. He was also
suffering from nystagmus (involuntary eye movements) and paralysis in the left
side of his face.
The dog's symptoms indicated a multifocal
brain injury, and an MRI showed severe brain swelling due to the prolonged lack
of blood flow to the head.
The final diagnosis was strangulation. Due
to the extent of the injuries, the dog was euthanized.”
Negative effects of
strangulation and “choking out” by use of a chain type collar extend beyond the
physical injuries. Emotional damage due to the extreme stress is clear.
“Because oxygen
deprivation is a survival threat of the highest urgency, however, the
homeostasis-restoration process is not limited to a purely physical response,
but also utilizes very strong emotions such as panic and terror. This is why
humans-and by all evidence animals-that may be trapped underwater and running out
of breath are infused with extremely intense fear and panic, which compels
immediate and powerful corrective action.” (McMillan, 2005)
Yet these extreme
physical methods are not necessary, even in the specific, high stress
environment of police work. In contrast, the Metropolitan London (England)
Police Force does not permit the use of choke or prong collars. During my visit
to and work with the Met Canine Unit during June, 2014, their policy was
explained and illustrated. The Met handlers will, in fact, be subject to
termination if they are found to be practicing the use of such tools. Despite
these limitations the Canine Unit of the Met is consistently ranked as one of
the top performing police canine units in the world.
SPECIFIC
PUNISHMENT CONCERNS: ELECTRONIC COLLARS
Electronic collars
are designed to produce a measured electrical pulse that is delivered to the
dog through electrodes placed tightly against the skin of the dog’s neck on the
inside surface of a collar. The electrical impulses are controlled by one of
two methods; automatically by sensors that are either triggered by proximity to
a boundary (usually established by a wire that emits a short range radio
signal) or, in the case of bark prevention collars, by the vibration of a third
sensor probe that contacts the dog’s throat near the vocal cords, or by a
human-controlled remote transmitter. Both methods usually provide a means of
adjusting the level of shock given. In the automatic modes the shock usually
escalates based on time, proximity (in the case of electrical fences), and
sometimes on the number of “offenses”. As an example of the latter, an
electronic anti-bark collar manufactured by Innotek Inc. starts with a warning
beep when the dog barks. If the dog barks again within eight (8) seconds of the
beep the collar automatically administers an increasing level of shock until
the dog stops barking. (Innotek manufacturers’ instructional materials).
On remote training
collars directly controlled by the owners the level of stimulus is directly set
and adjustable by the handler. The stimulus can also be selected for a
momentary impulse (less than 0.5 seconds) or a continuous shock. The continuous
mode, in most manufacturers’ models, has an override that stops the impulse
after about eight (8) seconds of continuous application. (Innotek
manufacturer’s instructional material, Dobbs 1993, Polsky 1994).
WELFARE
- Freedom from hunger or thirst by ready access to fresh water
and a diet to maintain full health and vigour
- Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate
environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area
- Freedom from pain, injury or
disease by
prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
- Freedom to express (most) normal
behaviour by
providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's
own kind
- Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and
treatment which avoid mental suffering
Applying the five
freedoms to the practicality of dog training, we must look at what our goal is
and whether the method of reaching it falls within these guidelines. Our goal
(the stated purpose of training) is to elicit or change behavior. Our
responsibility is to assess whether our training methods fall within the
boundaries of the Five Freedoms, and thereby within the parameters of positive
animal welfare.
To change behavior
and to assess change of behavior requires description of the behavior and
quantification of the change from baseline. To do this the Applied Animal
Behaviorist needs to define the behaviors desired. To evaluate whether a method
used is humane also requires quantification. The observation that a behavior occurs
is not enough to assess the appropriateness of the training method. The overall
status and condition of the dog, and the dog’s interactions with humans and
other dogs help establish whether the method is humane or not. Measures have
been developed that allow the AAB to assess
whether the dog’s behavior is normal or abnormal. These
measures include:
POSITIVE MEASURES
|
NEGATIVE MEASURES
|
Willing
human contact
|
Avoidance/flight
|
Acceptance
gestures
|
Fear
indicators/body language
|
Positive
body language
|
Warning
vocalization
|
Gaze
at owner
|
Brevity or absence of warning in
threatened situations
|
Bite
|
|
Negative
affective state (shutdown)
|
Illustrations of
the presence of negative behavioral measures resulting from highly aversive
training are documented. The use of electrical shock appears to carry more
negative behavioral consequences than harsh physical training. For example,
during free walking training, police service German shepherd dogs that
previously wore a shock collar showed lower ear posture and more stress-related
behaviors (lowering of body posture; high pitched yelps, barks, and squeals;
avoidance; redirection aggression; tongue flicking) than dogs who never
received collar shocks, although they were also trained with harsh methods
(Schilder and Van der Borg, 2004).
Chemical support
for the observed negative impact of aversive training methods, particularly
electric shock, have also been established using cortisol level studies. Beerda
et al. (1998) also showed behavioral and cortisol effects on laboratory dogs
that were administrated 6 different unpleasant stimuli; “the findings suggest
that stimuli like shocks or sound blasts may have been particularly stressful
to the dogs because they were associated with a very low posture and an
elevated level of cortisol.”
Predictability of a
punisher in a dog accustomed to that means of training affects the biochemical
status of the dog, and thereby affects the dog’s stress level. In Schalke
(2006), the following observations were made: “Three experimental groups were
used. Group A (Aversion) received the electric shock when the dogs touched the
prey—a rabbit dummy fixed to a motion device. Group H (Here) received the
electric shock when they did not obey a previously trained recall command
during hunting. Animals of group R (Random) received the electric shock
arbitrarily, i.e. the shock was administered unpredictably and out of context…
Group A did not
show a significant rise in salivary cortisol levels, while group R and group H
did show a significant rise. When the animals were reintroduced to the research
area after 4 weeks, the results remained the same.
This led to the
conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric
stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able
to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent
stress indicators.” Even those animals that were able to predict the electrical
shock, all three test groups in this study showed an elevated cortisol level related
to the administration of the electrical shock, showing a clear stress/distress
reaction.”
These physical
findings, coupled with the behavioral signs, give a behaviorist evidence to
make an evaluation of the dog’s state of welfare as it is defined by the Five
Freedoms. The use of pain, be it from physical impact, choking, or electrical
shock, appears to be present. This violates the principal of the second and
third freedoms, freedom from discomfort and pain or injury: discomfort is shown
by lowered body posture, excessive licking, and other indicators. Pain and
injury can be proved by the level of pain indicia such as dilated pupils,
avoidance, and certainly by clinical signs such as the strangulation cases
listed above. These same indicators show that the fifth freedom, freedom from
fear, is equally disregarded. Fearful behavior can be simply assessed by the
behaviorist and quantified by such measures as speed and willingness to
approach humans voluntarily, number and type of interactions, and the display
of warning behaviors.
CONCLUSION
These measures
should be sufficient to allow the establishment of use of aversive training
methods as less than meeting the needs of a dog under the five freedoms. But is
it cruelty?
The definition of
cruelty in Florida State Statutes is: “A person who unnecessarily overloads,
overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or
unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal…commits animal cruelty.” (Florida
State Statute 828.12 – 2012). Although this is a bit looser than the provisions
of the Five Freedoms, we can still make a case that, based on the behavioral
observations of an animal that is being trained using painful and frightening
aversive techniques is being “tormented”. More on point are those cases wherein
dogs are being physically injured. Although the provision for “unnecessarily”
may come into play, we can revert to the purpose for the training; a change in
behavior while maintaining animal welfare and a proper quality of life. Many other
states in the US reflect this wording in their statutes, or are at times more
stringent. The quantifiable, observable behaviors available to the Behaviorist
may well be able to establish that the reactions to these training methods are
abnormal and maladaptive and thereby show a needless level of distress.
Further
amplification of this is given by other sources.
“Our results
indicate that the immediate effects of training with an e-collar give rise to
behavioural signs of distress in pet dogs, particularly when used at high
settings. Furthermore, whilst best practice as advocated by collar
manufacturers mediates the behavioural and physiological indicators of poor
welfare detected in the preliminary study, there are still behavioural
differences that are consistent with a more negative experience for dogs
trained with e-collars, although there was no evidence of physiological
disturbance. E-collar training did not result in a substantially superior
response to training in comparison to similarly experienced trainers who do not
use e-collars to improve recall and control chasing behaviour. Accordingly, it
seems that the routine use of e-collars even in accordance with best practice
(as suggested by collar manufacturers) presents a risk to the well-being of pet
dogs. The scale of this risk would be expected to be increased when practice
falls outside of this ideal.” “These findings suggest that there is no
consistent benefit to be gained from e-collar training but greater welfare
concerns compared with positive reward based training.” (Cooper 2014)
“In conclusion,
confrontational or aversive behavioral interventions applied by dog owners
before their pets were presented for a behavior consultation were associated
with aggressive responses in many cases. Owners of dogs aggressive to family
members are especially at risk for injury—and their pets at risk of
relinquishment or euthanasia—when certain aversive methods are used.
Ultimately, reward-based training is less stressful or painful for the dog,
and, hence, safer for the owner. It is important for primary care veterinarians
to advise owners about risks associated with aversive training methods, despite
their prevalence in the popular media, and to provide resources for safe and
effective management of behavior problems.” (Herron 2009)
“More owners using
reward based methods for recall / chasing report a successful outcome of
training than those using e-collars.” (Blackwell 2012)
“There are
alternatives to aversive devices. I recently watched a Schutzhund dog work just
as well on a Scruffy-Guider (Misty Pines Dog Park, Sewickley, PA) as he did on
a choke collar, but he breathed better. I have seen military dogs learn almost
instantly using head collars (Gentle Leader; Premier Pet Products, Midlothian,
VA) because the target of their focus was clear. And I have seen my own dog,
Flash, recover from being hung from a choke chain until he passed out, after
which time he put the trainer in intensive care. That is how he became my
dog…he was my patient first. Some people reading this may have met him, and so
know what an amazing dog he is. Flash is the individual who first opened my
eyes to learning to think in a different way simply because any forceful
interaction with him would have resulted in injury to those exhibiting the
force. No exceptions. His lessons have benefited many.” (Overall 2007).
CITATIONS:
Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B.H., van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., de
Vries, H.W., and Mol, J. Behavioural, saliva cortisol, and heart rate
responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
1997; 58: 365–381
Blackwell, Emily J.; Twells, Caroline; Seawright, Anne;
Casey, Rachel The relationship between training methods and the occurrence
of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs
Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 3,
Issue 5, September-October 2008, Pages 207-217.
Chance, Paul, First Course in Applied Behavior Analysis,
Waveland Press, Groveland Illinois, 1998
Cooper JJ, Cracknell N, Hardiman J, Wright H, Mills D
(2014) The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with
Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training.
PLoS ONE 9(9): e102722. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.010272
Coren, Stanley PhD Dog Aggression Is Predicted by
Training Methods and Breed: Using punishment during training predicts
aggression toward people. Published on March 18, 2014 in Canine Corner,
Psychology Today
Dedalle, Stephanie; Gaunet, Florence Effects of 2
training methods on stress-related behaviors of the dog (Canis familiaris) and
on the dog–owner relationship Applied Animal Behaviour Science Volume 105,
Issue 4, July 2007, Pages 369–380
Dobbs, Jim and Phyllis and Woodyard, Alice TriTronics
Retriever Training, published by TriTronics, Inc. 1993)
Grohmann, K., Dickomeit, M. J., Schmidt, M. J., &
Kramer, M. (2013). Severe brain damage after punitive training technique
with a choke chain collar in a German shepherd dog. Journal of Veterinary
Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 8(3), 180-184.
Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R. (2009).
Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational
training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science, 117(1), 47-54.
Hetts, Suzanne PhD., Pet Behavior Protocols,
American Animal hospital Association Press, 1999
Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., & Bradshaw, J. W. S.
(2004). Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with
behaviour and welfare. ANIMAL WELFARE-POTTERS BAR THEN WHEATHAMPSTEAD-,
13(1), 63-70.
Lindsay, S. R. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of Applied Dog
Behavior and Training, Procedures and Protocols. John Wiley & Sons.
Matthijs B.H., Schildera, B. , Joanne A.M van der Borga Training
dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects
Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research Volume 9,
Issue 2, March–April 2014, Pages 58–65
Overall, K. L. (2007). Why electric shock is not
behavior modification. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical
Applications and Research, 2(1), 1-4.
Overall, Karen L. Considerations for shock and
‘training’ collars: Concerns from and for the working dog community Journal
of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research July–August 2007
Polsky, R. H. (1994). Electronic shock collars: are
they worth the risks? Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association,
30(5), 463-468.
Polsky, R. (2000). Can aggression in dogs be elicited
through the use of electronic pet containment systems? Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science, 3(4), 345-357.
Rooney, N. J., & Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods
and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(3), 169-177.
Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J., Ott, S., & Jones-Baade, R.
(2007). Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on
dogs in everyday life situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 105(4),
369-380.
Schilder, M. B., & van der Borg, J. A. (2004). Training
dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85(3), 319-334.
Washington State Patrol Detection Canine Handler Course,
author unknown, provided in discovery materials by the Washington State Patrol
in Criscuolo v. The City of Moses Lake Washington, 2011.
