Fear vs. Behavioral Training

Electronic Collars

Peer-reviewed scientific literature, including meta-analyses and primary research, is clear: electronic collars carry significant risks of fear, aggression, physical pain, and long-term welfare harm, and they perform no better than reward-based methods. Studies have demonstrated that shock-collar use elevates stress physiology, increases fear-based behavior and avoidance, exacerbates aggression, and degrades the dog–handler relationship, including outside of training sessions.

Reward-based training is at least as effective, safer and more humane, and improves the dog–owner bond. Suggestions that shock collars can be used “in a humane fashion” as long as the pet “knows why it is receiving that shock” is inconsistent with how pet parents use shock collars. Animals do not reliably associate shocks with specific behaviors unless the timing, intensity, and context are precisely controlled, conditions that are not achievable in typical pet homes and are rarely achievable even in professional hands.

Poorly timed or poorly understood shocks, even if rare, increase the likelihood of fear conditioning, redirected aggression, and avoidance of the handler.

Reliance on fear or the anticipation of pain to suppress behavior is inconsistent with humane training principles endorsed by international veterinary and welfare organizations. Conditioning a dog to respond out of fear of a shock does not teach alternative behaviors, does not improve underlying emotional states, and is well documented to increase stress and risk of aggression

The idea that shock collars might be justified to prevent aggression or prevent a pet from “running into the road” is unsupported by the literature. Positive reinforcement and management-based training methods demonstrate equal or greater efficacy for teaching recall, leash behavior, and appropriate responses to triggers, without the associated welfare harms.

Internationally, electronic collar bans or restrictions have been established in the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and several Australian states.

Based on decades of clinical experience, peer-reviewed research, and global veterinary consensus, the ACVB holds that:

Electronic collars (shock collars) pose significant welfare risks and should not be recommended for any training. Positive reinforcement–based methods are equally or more effective for training needs, including recall, reactivity, and behavior modification.

Source: The Pet Professional Guild https://www.petprofessionalguild.com

Electronic Fences

Dogs (and humans) learn by association. Dogs pay attention to what things might predict other things. When they see you getting out the clippers, they realize it’s time for a toenails clipping. You pick up the leash, and the dog knows it’s time for a walk. They develop emotional responses accordingly. As pertains to electronic fences, this means that your dog can very easily come to fear and/or aggress towards people and other dogs due to the fence and collar, because if he sees anything that excites him and causes him to run across the boundary, either to flee or aggress, he will get shocked. If that pattern gets repeated just a few times: see mail carrier, get shocked, the appearance of the mail carrier will be associated with bad things happening.

Even if you have set up a visible boundary for your dog and followed the training instructions for the electronic fence, that training can never be guaranteed to “stick” during every possible situation. If something catches his interest and gets him excited, he may well forget about the perimeter entirely or not notice the warning sounds.

Equally tragic is what can happen to a friendly dog. Let’s say you have a retriever mix who loves kids. He gets really excited whenever he sees them. Here come some kids. Maybe they are even carrying a ball. Your dog rushes forward to greet them, hits the perimeter, and gets shocked. That doesn’t have to happen many times before your dog comes to associate kids with being hurt. You may have lost your dog’s friendliness forever, and he may become aggressive. You will have no power over what your dog associates with the shock. Bad experiences like this increase the likelihood of the dog developing fears and even aggression

Peer-reviewed scientific literature, including meta-analyses and primary research, is clear: electronic collars carry significant risks of fear, aggression, physical pain, and long-term welfare harm, and they perform no better than reward-based methods. Studies have demonstrated that shock-collar use elevates stress physiology, increases fear-based behavior and avoidance, exacerbates aggression, and degrades the dog–handler relationship, including outside of training sessions.

Reward-based training is at least as effective, safer and more humane, and improves the dog–owner bond. Second, the suggestion that shock collars can be used “in a humane fashion” as long as the pet “knows why it is receiving that shock” is inconsistent with how pet parents use shock collars.

Animals do not reliably associate shocks with specific behaviors unless the timing, intensity, and context are precisely controlled, conditions that are not achievable in typical pet homes and are rarely achievable even in professional hands.

Poorly timed or poorly understood shocks, even if rare, increase the likelihood of fear conditioning, redirected aggression, and avoidance of the handler.

Reliance on fear or the anticipation of pain to suppress behavior is inconsistent with humane training principles endorsed by international veterinary and welfare organizations. Conditioning a dog to respond out of fear of a shock does not teach alternative behaviors, does not improve underlying emotional states, and is well documented to increase stress and risk of aggression

The idea that shock collars might be justified to prevent aggression or prevent a pet from “running into the road” is unsupported by the literature. Positive reinforcement and management-based training methods demonstrate equal or greater efficacy for teaching recall, leash behavior, and appropriate responses to triggers, without the associated welfare harms.

Internationally, electronic collar bans or restrictions have been established in the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and several Australian states.

Based on decades of clinical experience, peer-reviewed research, and global veterinary consensus, the ACVB holds that:

Electronic collars (shock collars) pose significant welfare risks and should not be recommended for any training. Positive reinforcement–based methods are equally or more effective for training needs, including recall, reactivity, and behavior modification.

Source: Contained in a letter from The Board of Regents of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists

As Good as Gold Adoption and Foster Policies

• AGaG does not allow foster or adoptive families to use any of the following training devices on our dogs: choke chains, chain collars of any kind, prong collars or shock collars.
• AGaG will not adopt to anyone who has an active invisible fence.

Source: https://www.asgoodasgold.org/our-adoption-and-foster-policies/