Shock collar

A typical shock collar.

Shock collar used on a riot police dog in 2004 in Würzburg. Two years later, Germany banned the use of shock collars, even by police.

A shock collar or remote training collar, also known as an e-collar, Ecollar, or electronic collar, is a type of training collar that delivers shocks to the neck of a dog to change behavior. These collars incorporate a radio-controlled electronic device and are worn around the dog's neck. Many European and South American countries view shock collars as animal cruelty and have banned their use. The mechanism behind shock collars involve inflicting varying levels and duration of pain, which generates fear and serves as a deterrent for undesirable behaviors. Some models of shock collar models offer additional features such as a tone or vibrational setting that can be used as an alternative or in combination with the shock. Certain advanced collars include Internet mapping capabilities and GPS functionality to track the dog's location or notify the owner about its whereabouts.

In the late 1960s, shock collars were initially developed for training hunting dogs, but they were originally designed with only one high level of power. Many modern versions are capable of delivering varying levels of shock. In areas where shock collars are legal, they are generally accessible, although Petco took the lead as the first major U.S. retailer to cease their sale. Shock collars have been used in a range of applications, including behavioral modification, obedience training, and pet containment, as well as military, police and service training. Although similar systems exist for other animals, shock collars designed for domestic dogs are the most commonly used.

Types of shock collars

Pet containment system/underground fence with shock collar

Where legal, the most common use of shock collars is pet containment systems that are used to keep a dog inside the perimeter of the residence without the construction of a physical barrier. These systems are illegal in "Austria, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Quebec, Wales and Scotland" Where legal, this use of shock collars is increasingly popular in areas where local laws or homeowners' associations prohibit the construction of a physical fence. Available systems include: in-ground installation to preserve the aesthetics of the yard; above ground installation to reinforce an existing barrier that was not sufficient in containing the dog; and wireless systems to allow for indoor use. Most pet containment systems work by installing a wire around the perimeter of the yard. The wire carries no current (as opposed to electric fences, which carry a current at high voltage that may be lethal in the event of unauthorized or defective installation or equipment) but forms a closed loop with a circuit box that transmits a radio signal to the receiver collar on the dog. As the dog approaches the perimeter the collar shocks the dog.

Bark control shock collars

Bark control shock collars are used to curb excessive or nuisance barking by delivering a shock at the moment the dog begins barking. Bark collars can be activated by microphone or vibration, and some of the most advanced collars use both sound and vibration to eliminate the possibility of extraneous noises activating a response.

Remote shock collars

Remote shock collars can be activated by a handheld device to give the dog an electric shock which causes pain. Unlike automatic shock collars, remote shock collars do require a person to actively trigger every shock, but Dr. Stanley Milgram in the Milgram experiment demonstrated that most people are willing to inflict electric shocks if convinced this will help the learning process.

Better quality remote trainers have a large variety of levels and functions, can give varying duration of pain, and have a beep or vibration option useful for getting the dog's attention.

Remote shock collars use operant conditioning either as a form of positive punishment, where the correction is applied at the moment an undesired behavior occurs to reduce the frequency of that behavior—or as a form of negative reinforcement, where a continuous stimulation is applied until the moment a desired behavior occurs, to increase the frequency of that behavior.

Opinions about the amount of pain caused by shock collars

Electrical shock is the pain, injury, physiological reaction, or sensation caused by electric current passing through the body. It occurs upon contact of a body part with any source of electricity that causes a sufficient current through the skin, muscles, or hair.

Pain is a difficult outcome to measure because its nature is both multifaceted and subjective, (although researchers have found some success in objectivity by measuring blood cortisol levels). As a result, researchers disagree on how much pain a shock collar causes.

Dr Diane Frank, in the Australian Veterinary Journal, firmly argues that shock collars for dogs inflict substantial pain and distress. “Electric shock hurts and the same shock will be perceived differently by different dogs. Regardless, if the dog perceives pain, he or she experiences a stress response that actively interferes with learning positive, more favourable, substitute behaviour. If the shock and pain are profound, it is possible to induce almost immediate long-term potentiation (LTP), or the molecular changes associated with hippocampal memory, which will lead to a strong aversion or phobia.”

In contrast, Steven R. Lindsay, in the 2013 edition of his textbook on training and behavior, (while issuing more caveats and warnings about the use of shock collars than in previous editions), he continues in his belief of the public perception of the term "shock" and its application in the description of training aids that, "At low levels, the term shock is hardly fitting to describe the effects produced by electronic training collars, since there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin ... the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsive spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses ... the stimulus or signal generated by most modern devices is highly controlled and presented to produce a specific set of behavioral and motivational responses to it." Lindsay does note that higher levels of shock from these collars do cause “fear” and “acute pain”.

In 2000, prior to Germany's ban on shock collars, Dr. Dieter Klein, in an article published in the German trade magazine "Office for Veterinary Service and Food Control," expressed the viewpoint that shock collars for dogs cause minimal pain. He further compared the impact of shock collars to other devices utilizing electrical stimulation. "Modern devices ... are in a range in which normally no organic damage is being inflicted. The electric properties and performances of the modern low current remote stimulation devices ... are comparable to the electric stimulation devices used in human medicine. Organic damage, as a direct impact of the applied current, can be excluded.”

Comparing pain levels: evaluating different amperages

The intensity of pain caused by electric current can vary significantly due to small changes in amperage. Furthermore, this pain can be further amplified by adjusting the pulse rate and duration. Other factors such as voltage, current, waveform, and frequency of the waveform are not particularly relevant when it comes to assessing the level of pain. While these factors can be used to calculate the amount of energy applied in Joules, they do not indicate the actual intensity of the stimulus or how it will be perceived by the recipient.

In 2004, Dr. Dieter Klein conducted research and estimated that commercial shock collars, which were later banned in Germany, operated at a minimum setting of 30 milliamps and a maximum setting of 80 milliamps. Another commonly-cited study, conducted by Christiansen et al., utilized shock collars with a higher intensity, reaching up to 400 milliamps.

To put these numbers in perspective, it can be helpful to look at other shock devices that have been used to produce pain on human beings for inducing compliance. The shock-handcuffs and stun belts that are used on human prisoners in the U.S. and South Africa (illegal in the U.K., the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, and Greece) are approximately one-tenth of the amperage (3-4 milliamps). A cattle prod (which is painful enough to be used illegally for torture of human beings) is not more than 10 milliamps.

To provide further context for the 30-80 milliamps range of shock collars, it is worth considering various comparisons to differ ways pain has been labeled at varying amperages. According to medical sources, an "electrical sensation" is typically associated with 0.2-2 milliamps. A study indicated that an animal's tolerance threshold for a prolonged duration was around 0.5 milliamps, while in another study, 1-2+ milliamps was described as a “painful shock”. Everyday static electric shocks typically range around 5 milliamps but are very brief in duration. In humans, a sustained current of 10 milliamps is considered the "let go threshold," leading to strong arm contractions and rendering the individual unable to voluntarily control their muscles or release an electrified object.

OSHA gives examples of the effects of shocks in milliamps using words such as “pain” and “extreme pain”, and their chart gives some perspective. “Below 1 milliamp: Generally not perceptible. 5 milliamps: Slight shock felt. Not painful but disturbing. Average individual can let go. Strong involuntary reactions can lead to other injuries. 6-25 milliamps (women): Painful shocks. Loss of muscle control. 9-30 milliamps (men): The freezing current or "let go" range. If extensor muscles are excited by shock, the person may be thrown away from the power source. Individuals cannot let go. Strong involuntary reactions can lead to other injuries. 50-150 milliamps: Extreme pain, respiratory arrest, severe muscle reactions. Death is possible.”

Depending on design, some shock collars can be set so that at the lowest level, the shock delivered is only mildly uncomfortable, and at the highest level produce acute pain. Variable settings of this kind are essential, so that the shock collar can be adjusted to provide the level of pain that changes the dog's behavior, as situations change.

Shock collars are sometimes referred to as delivering a "static shock"; however, static electricity is simple direct current and carries little energy (order of millijoules). Shock collars do not use simple direct current because the effect is too unpredictable, but rather, use pulsed direct current producing an effect resembling the square wave of alternating current. It is therefore inappropriate to refer to shock collars as delivering a static shock.

Consistent pain delivery requires good contact between the collar electrodes and the dog's shock skin. (The shock collar must be fitted according to the manufacturer's instructions.) Local humidity and individual variation in coat density, skin thickness and surface conductivity, also affect the delivery of the pain.

Individual variations in temperament, pain sensitivity and susceptibility to startle of dogs, means that settings must be carefully adjusted to produce pain that is perceived by the dog as only just aversive enough to stop the dog engaging in the unwanted behavior. Normally salient stimuli, such as noises, commands and even shocks, may have no effect on a dog that is highly aroused and focused on an activity such as hunting.

Note that a shock collar's individual shocks are short duration (6-8 milliseconds) to cause pain but not physical injury, but the pain intensity can be increased by using the same milliamps for each shock but then delivering more shocks per second: "Many e−collars appear to shift intensity levels by altering the pulse duration or repetition rate while keeping the output current and voltage relatively constant, depending on the electrode−skin load.". The pain level can also be increased by delivering a continuous series of shocks (up to 30 seconds).

Potential to cause physical harm

Pain experienced from shock collars is not from the electricity passing through the dog's body and reaching the ground (which would cause physical damage), but instead a result of electricity passing through a dog's body via closely-spaced electrodes (which should only cause pain). This pain is most clearly “described as physiological pain because it is not associated with any tissue damage” and even though such pain can “justifiably be described as a painful and emotionally distressing event, any potential harm would be psychological rather than physical”, and therefore, burns are not likely to occur.

Burns from shock collars are not unheard of, however. In 1980 (revised 1987), the US Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), a branch of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), concurred in regulatory action against a manufacturer of a bark collar, stating "Complaints received, which were later corroborated by our own testing, included severe burns in the collar area and possible personality adjustment injuries to the dogs. The shocking mechanism was found to be activated not only by barking but by vehicle horns, slamming doors or any other loud noise. CVM concurred in regulatory action against the device since it was deemed to be dangerous to the health of the animal." The standing policy of the US FDA is that "Dog collars which are activated by the noise of barking to produce an electric shock are considered as hazardous to the health of the animal."

In countries where shock collars are legal, no regulations exist specifying the performance characteristics or reliability of these devices, so there is considerable variation in shock level, pulse duration, and repetition rate between manufacturers, and perhaps even between batches of collars from a single manufacturer. The lack of regulation or standards, and the fact that some of the safety features of shock collars are patented by specific manufacturers, means that the safety and operational characteristics of individual products cannot be verified.

Training effectiveness

When it comes to effectiveness, no studies have shown that shock collars are more effective than positive reinforcement training.

Deterring predation in the wild

The Wildlife Society article addresses the use of shock collars as a way to prevent sheep from being preyed upon by wild coyotes. According to (Phillips, 1999) they tested these collars on coyotes for a four-month period and found that the collars stopped thirteen attacks on sheep herds. This also is said to deter future attacks by the tested coyotes. Collars have also been used on wolves for similar reasons. This document is the assessment of the shock collar on wolves’ long-term behavior. The article talks about trying to alter wolves’ behavior over an extended period of time using the collar. The consensus was while it did have an effect while in use and temporally after it was removed, the study concluded that longer exposure would be needed to have any substantial evidence (Hawley, 2008). As far as non-lethal alternatives these two sources both concluded that shock collars are the most effective deterrence to predators. Both groups continued their research and the Wildlife Society has developed a new and improved version that eliminates the risk of neck injury when used on animals that previous versions caused. They have increased battery life and the durability of the unit. They devised a unit that is worn like a back pack for the animal. Previous versions caused excessive rubbing and soreness as well as being irritating for the animal to the point where they would try to take the harness off.

Scientific studies

Ziv meta-review (2017)

A meta-review of 17 peer-reviewed studies found that “The results show that using aversive training methods (e.g., positive punishment and negative reinforcement) can jeopardize both the physical and mental health of dogs.”.

The meta-review singled out shock collars by referring to the conclusion of Overall (2007) that they “should not be used for behavior modification in dogs, because of their aversive nature and due to the lack of scientific data on their effectiveness”.

Christiansen et al. study (2001a)

Christiansen et al., looked at behavioural differences between three breeds of dogs when confronted by domestic sheep (138 dogs; Elkhounds, hare hunting dogs and English setters). Two testing procedures were used and shock collars were used to deter attacks on sheep. The first, a path test, involved observing the dogs' reactions to a set of novel stimuli (rag pulled across the track, bundle of cans thrown down, tethered sheep at 5m) as it was walked. The second test involved monitoring the dog's reaction to a free-roaming sheep flock in a field. In this study they identified several factors that predicted a high hunting motivation and attack severity. These were lack of previous opportunity to chase sheep, low fearfulness towards gunshots and unfamiliar people and general interest in sheep when encountering them. Younger dogs (<3 years of age) showed more pronounced initial hunting motivation and more frequent attacks. Elkhounds showed more hunting behaviour, more attacks and were more frequently given electric shocks during the tests. A shock collar was used to deter attacks on the sheep during the experiments. Shocks (3000 V, 0.4 A, duration 1 second) were delivered when dogs came within a distance of 1–2 m of the sheep, and were repeated until the dogs left the area. The objective was to suppress an attack, but not to damage the hunting ability of the dogs. Despite frequently initiated chases and attacks, few shocks were delivered. This was because few dogs approached closer than 1–2 m, and the intention was to deter proximity to sheep rather than to associate hunting behaviour with an aversive shock, which would impair future hunting behaviour in other contexts.

Christiansen et al. study (2001b)

The dogs used in the first study were re-tested using the same procedures, to assess long-term impact of the training on their reaction to sheep. Again, in the free-running tests the dogs were fitted with a shock collar, which was used to deter approaches to within 1–2 m of the sheep. Dogs that had previously been shocked in year 1 showed a significant increased in latency to approach a person during the path test (p < 0.001), even though this was not a condition under which shocks had been delivered. Owners reported behavioral differences between year 1 and 2 in 24 of the dogs. 18 of the 24 dogs had shown no interest in sheep during that period, even though they had been interested in them during the first year tests. However, only one of those dogs had received shocks, so the change in behaviour could not be attributed to the use of the shock collar. When comparing owners’ reports for the two years, the dogs showed a weaker inclination for chasing sheep and other prey than previously (p < 0:001), but this variable was not affected by shock experience. Dogs that had shown interest in sheep in year 1 showed a persistent interest in year 2. No dogs chased or attacked sheep as their first response, while half of them did so the first year. During the entire test period, the proportion of dogs attacking sheep was reduced to almost one fourth. The number of shocks administered per dog was reduced by the second year, and only one of the dogs that received shocks the first year needed shocks also the second year. The observations that both receivers and non-receivers of shocks the first year showed a reduction in the probability of chasing sheep, but the receivers showing a larger reduction, show that shock treatment provides an additional learning response. No adverse effects on the dogs were observed with this training procedure, but in their discussion the authors commented "In order to ensure no negative effects, we recommend that the electronic dog collar may be used for such purposes only if it is used by skilled trainers with special competence on dog behaviour, learning mechanisms, and of this particular device."

Salgirli dissertation (2008)

The aim of Salgirli's study was "...to investigate whether any stress is caused by the use of specific conditioned signal, quitting signal, and/or pinch collars as alternatives to electric training collars, and if they do so, whether the stress produced in the process is comparable to the one with electric training collars." The study population were a group of 42 adult police dogs. The quitting signal was a conditioned frustration equivalent to negative punishment. It was conditioned by associating failure to obtain an anticipated food reward with a specific vocal signal. In the test, dogs were walked past a "provocateur" who attempted to taunt the dog into a reaction. If the dog reacted, it was punished, and if it failed to react on subsequent provocations then the punishment was deemed to have had a learning effect. The study is therefore a comparison of negative and positive punishment methods, and not a comparison of punishment with positive reinforcement. Learning effect was measured by assessing the number of dogs that learned to quit a behaviour after application of the punishing stimulus. There was no statistical difference in learning effect between the pinch and shock collar, but the quitting signal produced a significantly poorer learning effect compared to shock or pinch collars (p < 0.01 in both cases). "Although the pinch collar caused more behavioral reactions, in the form of distress, than the electronic training collar, the electronic training collar elicits more vocal reactions in dogs than the pinch collars"; the explanation for increased vocalisation in the shock collar group was that this was due to a startle response rather than pain reactions.

Salivary cortisol was monitored to measure the stress levels of the dogs, but this data was not presented in the dissertation; behavioral observation was the sole measure of stress. The study concluded that the electronic training collar induces less distress and shows stronger “learning effect” in dogs in comparison to the pinch collar. Commenting on the quitting signal, the author stated "It should particularly be mentioned, that the quitting signal training was implied only on adult dogs within the frame of this study. Therefore, the results should not be interpreted as that the quitting signal can not be a suitable method in police dog training. As previously stated training of the quitting signal requires a hard and a structured procedure. Thus, if the training, namely the conditioning, begins in puppyhood, the quitting signal can also be an effective method in police dog training". Comparing the effects of the three punishment methods; "These results can probably be explained by that electronic training collar complies completely with the punishment criteria, which were defined by TORTORA (1982), in case of proof of the proficient and experienced user. On the other hand, when applying the pinch collar, these criteria can not be met even though perfect timing is applied since reactions of the dog and effectiveness of the method depends on several different factors such as the willingness, strength and motivation of the handler, as well as his/her proficiency. In addition to that, the visibility of the administrator and, thus, of the punishment is another important factor influencing the efficiency of the pinch collar because the dog directly links the punishment with its owner. Therefore, this method does not satisfy the 'punishment criteria’' at all. The quitting signal on the other hand requires criteria, such as good timing and structured training procedure, on account of complete conditioning to achieve effective results. Even if these criteria are met, the personality trait of the dog is another factor, which influences the efficiency of the signal."

The 2017 Ziv meta study found that this study was flawed. "A similar number of dogs learned to disregard the distraction with the use of the electronic collar (n=39) and the pinch collar (n=32), compared to only three dogs with the use of a quitting signal. A plausible explanation for these results is that the dogs receiving the quitting signal did not understand what was expected of them in this specific setting. Indeed, the training of the quitting signal was done with a toy and not with a provoking person. Expecting the dogs to generalize the quitting signal with a toy to a different scenario seems unrealistic. Hence, it is not surprising that the quitting signal failed to elicit the required behavior."

Schalke et al. study (2007)

Schalke et al. conducted a 7-month study to investigate the effect of shock collars on stress parameters, in a series of different training situations. Heart rate and saliva cortisol were used to determine the stress levels in three groups of dogs. Group A received the electric shock when they touched the "prey" (a rabbit dummy attached to a motion device), Group H ("here" command) received the electric shock when they did not obey a previously trained recall command during hunting, and Group R (random) received random shocks that were unpredictable and out of context. Group A did not show a significant rise in cortisol levels; the other two groups (R & H) did show a significant rise, with group R showing the highest level of cortisol. Salivary cortisol was measured, as this procedure is less likely to cause stress related rise in cortisol.

From this the researchers concluded that the dogs who could clearly associate the shock with their action (i.e. touching the prey) and as a result were able to predict and control whether they received a shock, did not show considerable or persistent stress. The evidence of increased stress in the other groups was felt to support earlier findings that poor timing and/or inappropriate use of a shock collar puts the dog at high risk of severe and ongoing stress. They conclude that "The results of this study suggest that poor timing in the application of high level electric pulses, such as those used in this study, means there is a high risk that dogs will show severe and persistent stress symptoms. We recommend that the use of these devices should be restricted with proof of theoretical and practical qualification required and then the use of these devices should only be allowed in strictly specified situations."

The 2017 Ziv meta-study found several flaws in this study. One flaw was that the second group of dogs were trained without a prey dummy but were tested with it. Another flaw was found to be: “While an increase in the concentration of cortisol can represent an increase in stress, it can also represent the physical activity level of the dog. Indeed, elevation in cortisol concentration an occur as a result of both low-intensity and high-intensity exercise. However, the dogs in this study exercised for 90 minutes on a treadmill, and while plasma cortisol gradually increased with the duration of exercise, large elevations were seen only after 15-30 minutes of exercise. Since the dogs in Schalke et al.’s (2007) study ran after prey for less than two minutes a day, and since plasma cortisol samples were taken 10 minutes after the administration of the shock, it is unlikely that the short exercise contributed significantly to the elevation in cortisol levels.”

Schilder & van der Borg study (2004)

Schilder and van der Borg conducted a study to compare the behavior of police service dogs that had previously been trained using a shock collar (Group S) with those that had not (Group C). In the training test no shocks were applied, but the animal's behavior was observed during training tasks. The intention was to investigate whether shock collar based training might have a long-term effect on stress-related behavior even in the absence of shock, and whether this related to specific features of the training context. Behaviors recorded included recognised indicators of stress (panting, lip-licking, yawning, paw lifting and body posture) as well as yelping, squealing, snapping and avoidance. During free walks on the training grounds, groups S dogs showed significantly more stress related behaviors and a lower body posture than group C dogs. During training, the same differences were found. The difference between the groups was more significant when training took place on the familiar training ground, indicating a contextual effect. The presence of the trainer was considered to be part of this context. The authors concluded "We concluded that shocks received during training are not only unpleasant but also painful and frightening."

Lindsay says of this study, "Schilder and Van der Borg (2004) have published a report of disturbing findings regarding the short-term and long- term effects of shock used in the context of working dogs that is destined to become a source of significant controversy.... The absence of reduced drive or behavioral suppression with respect to critical activities associated with shock (e.g., bite work) makes one skeptical about the lasting adverse effects the authors claim to document. Although they offer no substantive evidence of trauma or harm to dogs, they provide loads of speculation, anecdotes, insinuations of gender and educational inadequacies, and derogatory comments regarding the motivation and competence of IPO trainers in its place."

Steiss et al. study (2007)

Steiss, et al., conducted a four-week study of adult shelter dogs’ physiological and behavioral responses to bark control collars. Plasma cortisol was used as the stress measure. Dogs were randomly assigned to either a shock collar, a spray collar, or a dummy collar (control group). Dogs that were known to bark at an unfamiliar dog were used for the study. Test conditions involved presentation of an unfamiliar dog. Dogs wore activated collars for period of 30 minutes per day for three days in two consecutive weeks. The amount of barking was significantly reduced starting on the second day with both the spray and shock collars. There was no significant difference in effect between the two collar types. The treatment group dogs showed a mild yet statistically significant increase in blood cortisol level (an indicator of stress) only on the first day of wearing the collars (as compared to the Control Group.) At the conclusion of the study, Dr. Steiss and her team concluded that "In the present study, with dogs wearing bark control collars intermittently over a 2-week period, the collars effectively deterred barking without statistically significant elevations in plasma cortisol, compared to controls, at any of the time points measured."

The 2017 Ziv meta-study found that the study had a significant flaw in that the "lack of statistical significance was probably due to the small sample sizes (i.e., 6-8 dogs in each of three groups). Statistical analyses in future studies should make sure to report effect sizes in addition to null-hypothesis testing."

Tortora Study (1983)

Tortora applied a method called "safety training" to treat aggression in 36 cases exhibiting a form of "instrumental aggression", selected after screening a population of 476 cases. "Instrumental aggression" was defined as describing aggressive acts that "do not have a clear evolutionary significance, are not directly related to emotional arousal, do not have specific releasing stimuli, are not directly modulated by hormones, and do not have an identifiable focus in the brain". Tortora states that in the context of the article "instrumental aggression" was specifically defined as "aggressive responses that have "a specifiable learning history, show a growth function over time and are modulated by their consequences. These dogs had few operant alternatives to gain reinforcement by compliance and were channeled down a path that allowed their innate aggressiveness to come under the control of the negatively reinforcing contingencies in the environment". The dogs initially behaved as though they "expected" aversive events and that the only way to prevent these events was through aggression. The dogs were therefore a highly selected subset that had not learned strategies for coping with threat.

Each dog was trained to respond to a set of 15 commands taken from the AKC standard for CDX obedience. The commands were selected to provide control over the dog, and included "heel", "stand" "go", "come", "hold", "drop" and "sit". These behaviors were termed "safety behaviors". Training was divided into 9 stages, each of which was composed of 5–20 twice daily training sessions. Dogs could only progress to the next stage after passing a test. On average, dogs took 10–15 sessions to complete each stage. After training on basic commands, the dogs were trained to perform the behaviors they had already learned in order to avoid progressively increasing electric shock. After that, they were conditioned to perform a safety behavior to avoid a "safety tone" that let them anticipate the shock. In later stages of training, dogs were exposed to provocation by a distractor dog, and were punished using full intensity shock if they failed to perform a safety behavior or showed aggression. After training was complete, and the dogs were choosing to perform the safety behaviors instead of aggression, owners were taught to use the shock collar, and the training was transferred into everyday situations. The training resulted in a long-lasting and complete suppression of aggressive behaviour in the dogs. Dogs were followed up three years after the end of training, and the reduction in aggression was maintained.

The 2017 Ziv meta-study did not include this study because it did not measure the physical or mental health of the dogs that were shocked.

Criticism

Even in countries where shock collars are legal, their use is controversial.

The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) provides the following comment on the use of aversive collars (choke chains, pinch collars and shock collars): "Some trainers use aversive collars to train "difficult" dogs with correction or punishment. These collars rely on physical discomfort or even pain to teach the dog what not to do. They suppress the unwanted behavior but don't teach him what the proper one is. At best, they are unpleasant for your dog, and at worst, they may cause your dog to act aggressively and even bite you. Positive training methods should always be your first choice." They go on to comment on shock collars specifically: "The least humane and most controversial use of the shock collar is as a training device. The trainer can administer a shock to a dog at a distance through a remote control. There is a greater chance for abuse (delivery of shocks as punishment) or misuse (poor timing of shocks). Your dog also may associate the painful shock with people or other experiences, leading to fearful or aggressive behavior".

Pet Professionals Guild's position statement states that "electric shock in the guise of training constitutes a form of abuse and should no longer be a part of the current pet industry culture of accepted practices, tools or philosophies". members. Fear Free-certified trainers also prohibit the use of shock collars. The Canadian Association of Professional Dog Trainers, PACT and the BC SPCA’s AnimalKind Accreditation prohibit members from using shock collars.

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants has strengthened their position on shock collars with an addendum that states, “Our goal is to eliminate the use of shock devices from training and behavior work” and that “ Members will work to eliminate the use of shock completely from their practice.”

The APDT (Association of Professional Dog Trainers) has strengthened their policy on shock collars and their newest position statement says, "APDT takes the stance that there are no training or behavior cases which justify the use of intentional aversive punishment-based interventions in any form of training ranging from general obedience and tricks to dealing with severe behavior problems. This is in agreement with the American Veterinary Society for Animal Behavior 8 and available literature. Trainers who use aversive tools such as choke collars, prong collars, shock collars (including “stim-collars” and “e-collars”), bonkers, shaker-cans, citronella spray, water spray, leash-pop/leash-corrections (with any type of collar/harness), yelling, or any other technique designed to cause fear, pain, or startle in the dog are not practicing LIMA as described and used within APDT.”

The AVSAB (American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior) has strengthened their position statement on all aversive methods, including shock collars, which now states “The application of aversive methods – which, by definition, rely on application of force, pain, or emotional or physical discomfort – should not be used in canine training or for the treatment of behavioral disorders.”

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) opposes the use of shock collars, stating "Dogs wearing shock collars can suffer from physical pain and injury (ranging from burns to cardiac fibrillation) and psychological stress, including severe anxiety and displaced aggression. Individual animals vary in their temperaments and pain thresholds; a shock that seems mild to one dog may be severe to another. The anxiety and confusion caused by repeated shocks can lead to changes in the heart and respiration rate or gastrointestinal disorders. Electronic collars can also malfunction, either administering nonstop shocks or delivering no shocks at all".

CABTSG (The Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group), an affiliate group of the BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association), now renamed the British Veterinary Behaviour Association, no longer has a policy statement against shock collars because England outlawed shock collars on February 1, 2024.

On the advice of the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and other welfare groups, the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) banned the use of shock collars for police dog training by all UK police forces. The current ACPO Police Dogs Manual of Guidance states "Equipment that is not approved for use in the training of police dogs includes remote training collars designed to give an electric shock and Pinch Collars".

The RSPCA removed a policy statement discouraging the use of shock collars in 2018 due to a UK Government statement that they would be banned. In June 2023 the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations 2023 were approved by the Lords but a delay in implementation leading to the BVNA alongside other charities such as the RSPCA launching a campaign to support the proposed ban.

The UK Kennel Club has won a ten-year campaign to achieve a ban on the sale and use of shock collars. Their campaign had stated that "The Kennel Club is against the use of any negative training methods or devices. The Kennel Club believes that there are many positive training tools and methods that can produce dogs that are trained just as quickly and reliably, with absolutely no fear, pain, or potential damage to the relationship between dog and handler." "The Kennel Club in calling upon the Government and Scottish Parliament to introduce an outright ban on this barbaric method of training dogs.".

The two British members of the World Union of German Shepherd Clubs (WUSV) helped the Kennel Club win a complete ban on shock collars. They passed a motion to exclude this equipment from any of its training branches during official club training times.

The NCAE (Norwegian Council on Animal Ethics) no longer has a position statement against shock collars because Norway has made shock collars illegal.

Praise

In his 2013 revision of his textbook on training and behavior, Steven R. Lindsay has more reservations about shock collars than in earlier editions of his textbook, but he does advocate their use in certain situations. He writes "Although collar-produced shock can cause acute pain, the painful event does not and cannot produce physical injury. The 2013 edition was published in Germany, where shock collars were made illegal in 2006, but Lindsay believes that they “may play a valuable therapeutic role in counteracting established patterns of inappropriate and reactive behavior occurring under aversive or threatening situations”.

The International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) avoids using the phrase "shock collar" or any other similar term in their official position. Instead, they imply that using shock collars can be a "humane use of training tools" and strongly oppose any laws that would ban or limit their use. “It is our conviction that limiting the humane use of training tools would result in a higher incidence of nuisance and dangerous dog behavior, and more dogs being surrendered to already over-burdened public shelters.... Training tools, when properly utilized, are safe and humane.”

To prevent confusion, it is worth noting that the IACP's use of the word “humane” may be doublespeak, as the word is usually used in contexts that are against the use of shock collars, but the IACP's position statement uses the word “humane” to state that the organization is for the use of shock collars.

Legal status

Regions where shock collars are banned

Shock collars are banned in:

• Germany
• France
• Spain
• The Netherlands
• Austria
• Denmark
• Finland
• Iceland
• Norway
• Sweden
• Wales
• The Canadian province of Quebec
• Slovenia
• Some regions of Australia (New South Wales, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory)

They will be banned in Flanders in Belgium after 2027. Automatic anti-barking shock collars are banned in Switzerland.

Legal cases involving shock collars

In 2001, British magistrates found that the aggressive behaviors of three dogs were due to the effects of shock collars. The initial incident occurred when the dogs, startled by a small dog, caused their owner to jump, inadvertently triggering the shock collars. This led to the dogs associating small dogs with receiving shocks, resulting in fear and aggression towards them. Over time, this escalated, leading to the dogs attacking and killing a small dog.

In 2002, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Victoria, Australia lost a defamation lawsuit to a shock collar manufacturer and was ordered to pay AUD100,000 in damages. The RSPCA was found to have falsely claimed that shock collars can cause burns, deliver 3,000 volt shocks to dogs, and that the current from a shock collar had caused a 60 kilogram dog to perform backflips and resulted in brain damage. RSPCA's claims that these collars caused epileptic fits, vomiting, seizures, burning and bleeding was also found to be misleading. The RSPCA's senior inspector had falsified evidence in an attempt to demonstrate that shock collars can cause burns.

In 2010, the High Court in Wales upheld a ban on the use of shock collars for cats and dogs. It was unsuccessfully challenged by Petsafe, a manufacturer of these devices, and the Electronic Collar Manufacturers' Association. The court upheld the law and ruled that it did not breach Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights (concerning the right to property).

In 2011, a Welsh man became the first person convicted of illegal use of a shock collar in Wales, receiving a fine for £2,000.

Sources

• Lindsay, Steven R., ed. (2005). Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Volume Three. doi:10.1002/9780470344514. ISBN 978-0-470-34451-4.
• Lindsay, Steven R. (2013). Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Procedures and Protocols. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-69675-0.

External references

• Lindsay, Steven R. (2000), Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, vol. 1, Blackwell, p. 136.
• Polsky, R.H. (2000), "Can aggression be elicited through electronic pet containment systems", Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 345–357, doi:10.1207/S15327604JAWS0304_6, S2CID 144523674.
• 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, vol. 105, no. 4, p. 369, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.002, S2CID 31552322.
• Schilder, Matthijs B.H.; van der Borg, Joanne A.M. (2004), "Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects", Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 85, no. 3–4, pp. 319–334, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2003.10.004, S2CID 26374104.
• Andelt, William F.; Phillips, Robert L.; Gruver, Kenneth S.; Guthrie, Jerry W. (Spring 1999), "Coyote Predation on Domestic Sheep Deterred with Electronic Dog-Training Collar", Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27 (1): 12–18.
• Hawley, Jason E.; Rossler, Shawn T.; Gehring, Thomas M.; Schultz, Ronald N.; Callahan, Peggy A.; Clark, Raymond; Cade, Jerry; Wydeven, Adrian P. (2013), "Developing a New Shock-Collar Design for Safe and Efficient Use on Wild Wolves", Wildlife Society Bulletin, 37 (2): 416–422, Bibcode:2013WSBu...37..416H, doi:10.1002/wsb.234, JSTOR wildsocibull2011.37.2.416
• Hawley, Jason E.; Gehring, Thomas M.; Schultz, Ronald N.; Rossler, Shawn T.; Wydeven, Adrian P. (2009). "Assessment of Shock Collars as Nonlethal Management for Wolves in Wisconsin". The Journal of Wildlife Management. 73 (4): 518–525. doi:10.2193/2007-066. JSTOR 40208400. S2CID 85070426.
• Reynolds, Linda, ed. (2011). Companion Dog Obedience Training With Electronic Collars. ASIN B0063AC7HA.

See also

• Cattle prod
• Electroshock weapon
• Graduated Electronic Decelerator
• Stun gun