Types of Electronic Training Devices

Although the types of electronic training devices vary by function, they are similar in the fundamental delivery of the static stimulation. Modern electronic training devices deliver a low- energy electrical stimulation through contact points attached to a dog collar. Training devices are generally broken down into three classes, each with its own intended use:

Pet containment systems offer a method to confine a dog within an outdoor area, while removing the necessity of constructing a physical barrier. These systems may be installed in-ground for aesthetics as a stand-alone solution, or above ground as reinforcement for an existing barrier that the dog does not respect. In addition to recent wireless models, there are also systems designed for indoor use that can be scaled from small areas (two-foot circle) to larger spaces (twenty-foot circle). Today’s pet containment systems are far more sophisticated than ever before, and offer a variety of features designed to provide a trusted resource for pet containment needs.

Bark control collars are used to curb excessive or nuisance barking by delivering an automatic stimulation from the collar. While these collars come in electronic, spray and sonic varieties, this paper addresses electronic stimulation bark control collars only.

Training collars or “remote trainers” allow the handler to train the dog at close range or at a distance, even when the dog is off-lead or otherwise out of immediate reach. Electronic remote training devices consist of a collar with a receiving unit, and a remote hand-held transmitter carried by the user. When the appropriate button is pressed on the hand-held transmitter, the collared dog receives a warning tone or stimulation (electronic, vibration, etc.). In addition to being useful for deterring undesired behaviors, remote trainers have also proven highly effective for reinforcing the teaching of obedience and other commands.

As with all training protocols or products, we recommend a thorough physical examination and consultation with a veterinarian to determine any health or temperament problems that could be treated with medical care, prior to any training or attempt to change an undesirable behavior.

Veterinarian Survey on Electronic Training

A survey of veterinarians and veterinarian technicians attending the 2003 North American Veterinary Conference found a generally positive attitude about the use of electronic training devices, with 80% of veterinary professionals stating that they would recommend them in many cases.¹⁰

What about the other 20 percent? Of those who would not recommend the devices in most cases, their primary concerns were:

·  Could owner misuse of the product result in adverse physical and/or psychological effects?

·  Might the dog be subjected to undue discomfort?

The following research project provides reassurance to veterinary professionals who have concerns about potentially adverse effects of modern electronic training devices.

Case 1 – Tuskegee University Study Finds No Lingering Adverse Effects of Bark Collars

Pet behavior problems are a key contributor to the rising animal shelter population, thus research was conducted in shelter and rescue environments to gauge the effectiveness of electronic training devices.

In 2003 a team led by Janet Steiss, D.V.M., PhD, Tuskegee University College of Veterinary Medicine, conducted a four-week study of adult shelter dogs’ physiological and behavioral responses to bark control collars.

Dogs were randomly assigned to either an electronic collar, a spray collar, or the control group.

At the conclusion of the study, Dr. Steiss and her team concluded that electronic bark collars were not only effective in controlling excessive barking, but that they also did not cause any lingering adverse physiological effects.¹¹

From a behavioral standpoint, the amount of barking was significantly reduced starting on the second day that dogs wore the electronic collars. Physiologically, the dogs registered 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.)

Table 1: Summary of Salivary Cortisol Concentrations (mean ± SD, nmol/L) for Dogs in Bark Collar Study

Samples were taken 20 minutes after the collar was removed, on week 4, day 3, the last day of the study.

Notes:

·    Values were reported as µg/dl and converted to nmol/L (conversion factor: x 27.59)

·    No blood contamination of the saliva samples was found
on the blood detection kit (transferring < 0.08 mg/dl)

·    Salivary cortisol standard curve extends from 0.008 to 1.6 µg/dl.

• Samples taken from 2 non-racing Greyhounds housed in the Small Animal Clinic, Tuskegee University, had values of 1.65 and 1.38 nmol/L.

Source: Janet Steiss, D.V.M., PhD, PT, et al.

Case 2 – Knox County Tennessee Animal Control Study, January 2007

Dave Head, Director of Animal Control for Knox County, Tennessee (population 400,000+), conducted a 24-month period of qualified research to measure the impact of bark control collars on dogs in the survey area. 457 bark collars were made available to pet owners during the study. At the conclusion of the trial period, complaints to the Animal Control office to report barking dogs had diminished from a norm of 25 per day to 1-2 calls per day. In addition, the Animal Control office reported a 5% decrease in dogs running at-large, and the reduction in barking dog complaints increased regular officer productivity. Knox County continues to offer bark collars in an ongoing study effort. Knox County is one of over 500 Animal Control Organizations and Shelters in the United States who were provided Bark Collars at no cost, in an effort to solve nuisance barking complaints.¹²