Search

Simple Summary: The use of electronic shock collars ("e-collars") is one of the most controversial topics in dog training. In this study, we compared e-collars to methods relying entirely on food rewards in order to stop dogs running after a lure. We found that dogs receiving shocks from e-collars stopped chasing a lure within two sessions of ten minutes of lure running per session. These dogs also refrained from chasing the lure in three out of four test sessions. Two groups of dogs trained with food reward did not refrain from chasing the lure across five training sessions and failed all four test sessions. Aside from presumably pain-induced yelps in the dogs with e-collars when they received shocks, none of the dogs in any groups showed any signs of stress or distress. E-collars may be an appropriate tool in the hands of expert trainers training behaviors that have important welfare impacts, such as running after cars or other animals. Future studies should investigate the levels of expertise needed to use e-collars effectively, the kinds of behavioral problems for which they are best suited, and the longer-term implications of their use. Controversy surrounds the efficacy and welfare implications of different forms of dog training with several studies asserting that electronic shock collars have negative welfare impacts while not being more effective than non-aversive methods. However, these studies did not specify the schedule and intensity of punishment used or the effectiveness of the training method. In the current study, we attempted to train dogs across six sessions to desist from chasing a fast-moving lure in one of three randomly assigned conditions and then tested for retention and generalization in four further test trials. Group A was trained with e-collars; Group B was trained with non-aversive methods and the lure moving as with Group A; and Group C was trained as for Group B but with the lure initially moving slowly before its speed was progressively increased. All dogs in Group A stopped running towards the lure after one or two sessions, and none chased the lure in the first three tests: 67% of these dogs chased the lure in the final test in a novel arena. None of the dogs in the either Group B or C successfully refrained from chasing the moving lure in training or any test. Video behavior coding indicated few stress-related behaviors across the training groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Recent research has focused on the welfare implications of differing dog training methodologies, but there is less insight into how dog guardians may train their dogs. The aim of this survey study was to gain insight into what training methods dog guardians use, particularly the use of aversive methods, and where they received their recommendations. While there has been recent attention in the scientific community on the ethical and welfare implications of different dog training methods, less research has investigated what methods and training tools United States dog guardians use, where they obtain information about dog training, and the reasons they give for their choices of method. We conducted two surveys with nearly 800 Arizona State University undergraduate students to gain a more realistic look into how dog guardians in the United States train their dogs and where they are receiving their training information. Only 5% of respondents reported utilizing a trainer when they had concerns regarding their dog's behavior; 60% would ask a friend or family member or seek advice online. Few reported taking their dog to any training classes; 70% reported either training the dog themselves or not implementing any formal training. When asked general questions, most respondents reported using rewards-based methods but, when asked about specific problem behaviors, 57% of respondents noted that they would use auditory or physical corrections. Respondents who trained with rewards-based methods reported that these methods of training were more effective significantly more frequently than those who trained with mixed methods reported that those methods were most effective (Fisher's Exact Test, p < 0.01). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Controversy surrounds the efficacy and welfare implications of different forms of dog training with several studies asserting that electronic shock collars have negative welfare impacts while not being more effective than non-aversive methods. However, these studies did not specify the schedule and intensity of punishment used or the effectiveness of the training method. In the current study, we attempted to train dogs across six sessions to desist from chasing a fast-moving lure in one of three randomly assigned conditions and then tested for retention and generalization in four further test trials. Group A was trained with e-collars; Group B was trained with non-aversive methods and the lure moving as with Group A; and Group C was trained as for Group B but with the lure initially moving slowly before its speed was progressively increased. All dogs in Group A stopped running towards the lure after one or two sessions, and none chased the lure in the first three tests: 67% of these dogs chased the lure in the final test in a novel arena. None of the dogs in the either Group B or C successfully refrained from chasing the moving lure in training or any test. Video behavior coding indicated few stress-related behaviors across the training groups.

While there has been recent attention in the scientific community on the ethical and welfare implications of different dog training methods, less research has investigated what methods and training tools United States dog guardians use, where they obtain information about dog training, and the reasons they give for their choices of method. We conducted two surveys with nearly 800 Arizona State University undergraduate students to gain a more realistic look into how dog guardians in the United States train their dogs and where they are receiving their training information. Only 5% of respondents reported utilizing a trainer when they had concerns regarding their dog’s behavior; 60% would ask a friend or family member or seek advice online. Few reported taking their dog to any training classes; 70% reported either training the dog themselves or not implementing any formal training. When asked general questions, most respondents reported using rewards-based methods but, when asked about specific problem behaviors, 57% of respondents noted that they would use auditory or physical corrections. Respondents who trained with rewards-based methods reported that these methods of training were more effective significantly more frequently than those who trained with mixed methods reported that those methods were most effective (Fisher’s Exact Test, p < 0.01).