E-collars appear after shock collars have such a bad reputation. The name itself was enough to make the manufacturers think about alternatives, since even dog owners with little to no knowledge were reluctant to use a tool that administered shocks to their dogs.
E-collars appear as an alternative to shock collars. Even though all the rethoric around them is based on the fact that the feeling of an e-collar is like a little stim (like you would feel if you touched a surfaced and got a shock from the environmental conditions), or also compared to devices that push the muscles like electrical ab devices.
It is a fact that e-collars were built, unlike shock collars, to administer very low electronic stimulus, which could even be used or paired with a positive reinforcer and some people use them for distance training with deaf dogs.
This however can only be achieved if the stim that the e-collar delivers to the individual dog is perceived by him as neutral, meaning, it does not bother him in any way, it does not scare him, hurt him or otherwise makes him want to avoid it. Under these conditions one could pair the neutral stimulus with a positive reinforcer and use it in that manner.
I am not going to discuss the fact that one could the same with other options which do not include the e-collar stim, but we are discussing e-collars as abusive tools, so lets focus on that.
E-collars although their uses deny it, it does deliver electric shocks, if you start to elevate the levels. Most trainers who use these tools, use them via Negative Reinforcement and/or Positive punishment, the e-collars can be used both ways. Delivering shock continuously until the trainer makes it stop (R-), or just deliver a "quick" shock (P+). This means that most trainers who use this tool use it as an aversive.
Lets look at the definition of aversive stimulus:
According to Raymond Miltenberger's, "Behaviour modification principles and procedures" an aversive stimulus is "A stimulus that will decrease the future probability of an behaviour when the stimulis is contingent on the occurrence of the behaviour. Also called punisher."
Paul Chance in his "Learning and Behaviour" describes aversive as "Any stimulus the removal of which is reinforcing characterizing an event that is likely to be avoided."
Finally let's look at James O'Heare definition of aversive in his book "Agressive behaviour in dogs". Aversive stimulus is a stimulus that an organism acts to evade or escape from, or avoid. Aversive stimulation can result in some problematic secondary effects, such as aggression , countercontrol, social disruption and emotional escape/avoidance behaviour. Aversive stimulation involves fear - or pain eliciting stimuli and is the opposite of appetitive stimulation which is pleasure eliciting."
So when trainers use these tools as an aversive this is what we are talking about. There are many problems with the use of aversives in dog training, however the ability to use such a tool in a abusive way is much easier than others. First we need to recognize that we are not the ones who define what is an aversive, meaning that definition will always be up to the individual dog. But having said that, if a trainer delivers a low stim and that dog perceives it as neutral or non aversive, than the collar is useless.
In order to be effective what the dog feels need to be perceived as aversive to him as that has been defined by three authors above. Aversive is then something highly probable to cause discomfort in a level the dog would want to escape at best and severe pain at worst.
There is no way to know how a dog perceives the intensity of an aversive. The level on the e-collar will be increased up untill the objective is achieved. But when that happens we know for sure the collar is then aversive to the dogs, but how aversive no one can tell.
That is the reason why I do not agree with evaluating aversives in scales when they are used in training in real life. An aversive is an aversive and no one knows if it causes pain or less than that. We only know its aversive, if it does increase or decrease behaviour by P+ or R-.
Dogs are known for being quite stoic when demonstrating pain according to the study by Bernie D. Hansen, Assessment of Pain in Dogs: Veterinary Clinical Studies , "Subjective assessment of pain behavior can prove very challenging. Under many circumstances, the effect of injury or chronic disease on observable behavior in humans may correlate poorly with patient self-reports or assessments ( Turk and Flor 1987 ). Similar disparity between observable behavior and experience may exist in other species. For example, the most severely injured dogs in our hospital intensive care unit routinely show little of the attention-getting behavior they might show their owners during times of good health when, for example, the owner accidentally steps on a foot. In animals, as in humans, the intensity of the pain experience may be greater than that predicted solely on the basis of casual observation of behavior. The absence of dramatic behavioral displays in the setting of significant trauma or illness may be a factor in undertreatment ( Hansen and Hardie 1993 )."
This helps us understand how difficult it is to correctly assess pain in dogs. Which means a dog might be feeling pain and not exactly show it the way one expects him to, including the owners and the trainers. So the trainer might claim the dog is feeling only a stim or a tickle when the dog might actually be feeling pain.
It is paramount we understand that using a tool which operates under the principle of activating or ending an aversive based in electronic currents, are bound to be an abusive tool.
Is there a place for E-collars?
There is no place for a device that applies electric shocks to a sentient being, without consent nor him understanding what is going on. In 2021, the incredible amount of scientific and practical experience we have is more than enough to understand that not only the use of e-collars is abusive, but above all is completely unnecessary.
In the study "The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training", by Jonathan J. Cooper, * Nina Cracknell,Jessica Hardiman,Hannah Wright, and Daniel Mills, from 2014
"...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."
Another study, The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review" fom Gal Ziv from 2017 reviewed 17 studies that analysed the different training methods.
"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. In addition, although positive punishment can be effective, there is no evidence that it is more effective than positive reinforcement–based training. In fact, there is some evidence that the opposite is true. A few methodological concerns arose from the reviewed studies. Among them are small sample sizes, missing data on effect size, possible bias when coding behavior in observational studies, and the need to publish case reports of bodily damage caused by aversive training methods. In conclusion, those working with or handling dogs should rely on positive reinforcement methods and avoid using positive punishment and negative reinforcement as much as possible."
I will not continue to cite studies because there are many all approaching the use of e-collars of aversives in different ways, but all pretty much coming down to the same conclusions. The use of e-collar poses a threat to the well being of the dogs, is unnecessary and is prone to be abusive most of the times.
Considering this, my statement as a 14 year old FF dog trainer is that it is time the FF dog trainer community starts taking a more clear stand about these tools.
As per the study by Zazie Todd "BARRIERS TO THE ADOPTION OF HUMANE DOG TRAINING METHODS", Companion Animal Psychology, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, June 2018 Vol. 25
"This study reviews the barriers to the adoption of humane dog training methods by the general public. Lack of knowledge of the welfare risks, the poor quality of much information available to dog owners (should they seek it out), lack of regulation of dog trainers, and theoretical and practical knowledge of dog training will all affect people's choice of method. The differing positions of animal behavior and veterinary organizations and dog trainers may contribute to the idea that there is a lack of consensus on appropriate methods."
So whilst associations and institutions who represent a large number of dog professionals don't take a clear stand about the use of e-collar being abusive, their are contributing to the confusion and hence the use and more likely misuse of these tools. Also all the FF trainers who do not voice their concerns about these tools, pointing out they are unnecessary and abusive are also contributing to the missinformation.
The FF community has the experience, knowledge, know-how and the science to take clear stands and call out abuse to defend the well being of dogs and also their owners, but unfortunately as quick as they as a community are to condemn puppy mills, they will be silent about the "trainers" using these tools. The FF community always convinces their proponents never to engage in confrontation with trainers who choose to use these tools, buut this tactic is only damaging dogs, their human families, and allowing for abuse to continue.
If this was about spanking children no one would hesitate to take a clear stand, to accuse people of doing it, and to force laws to protect children however, it is not, and to most FF trainers, institutions and associations, silence is more profitable.
In the last 3 years I have osbserved FF trainers who in the past took a clear stand against e-collars, going back and actually stating there is a space for their use. I have also observed an increasing ammount of institutions who claim to represent FF trainers, start to accept these tools and even promoting events where non FF trainers are invited to talk.
Whilst there is this double standard of trainers wanting to traing FF but at the same time embracing any other trainer who abuses dogs, the dog owners will never be able to comprehend or understand where the best choice resides for their dog. And so, I believe we as a community for promoting FF training techniques and the end of abuse of dogs are failing them to a point that is embarassing.