14/09/2024
I commend dog trainer Zak George for continually speaking out about painful, harmful and outdated dog training techniques including e-collars, aka shock collars.
I once asked a dog trainer who used these in his training whether had had ever tested it on himself before applying shocks to dogs so he knew what a shock would feel like. His answer was “no” so I put the collar around my neck as it would be positioned on a dog and asked him to shock me. He refused but I kept asking him to do it, he does this all the time to dogs so why the hesitation now? Eventually after asking him many times he did it and boy was it painful! I literally jumped from the shock. The look on his face informed me that he was suprised at how much it hurt. I was suprised too at what an intense reaction my body had to it.
The collar was on the lowest setting, meaning the pain would only increase for a dog as the trainer increased the shock level, which is a common practice if a trainer that uses these does not get the result they want after using the lower setting.
I took the collar off and said it was his turn now. He refused. I insisted as I really wanted him to understand what he was doing every time he hit that shock button, but his refusals continued.
What a coward, I thought. He wouldn’t inflict something on himself once which he has done to many dogs over many years.
We all know just how sensitive dogs are as we have all seen it. The way they remember that one incident from ages ago and behave differently in similar circumstances ever since. How easily they can get scared or dread certain situations. To think that we apply such an intense and painful tool on such a sensitive animal is beyond me.
I truly empathise with people who honestly believe using these tools is the only way to address an issue because there are many people that advocate for them, and there are societal pressures, expectations and misinformation that shape us. If you are thinking of using such a collar or work with a trainer that insists it’s the only way, I urge you to seek information on other alternatives, training methods and management techniques.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/hAJyt8vt73pnTNsz/?mibextid=WC7FNe
Public Letter to Ivan Balabanov
Dear Mr. Balabanov,
I am writing on behalf of many in the modern dog training community to address serious concerns regarding your participation and professional conduct in the study titled “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs.”
The study revealed that 100% of the dogs in the shock collar group yelped in pain when shocked. The study notes, “We did not observe negative welfare impacts in the dogs trained with e-collars beyond presumably pain-induced yelps in immediate response to the electric shocks.” This confirms immediate distress caused by the shocks with 8 dogs in your custody.
Even more troubling is that 25% of the dogs in the shock collar group were removed because they exceeded the 20 shocks allowed, yet those attempts still failed to suppress their chasing behavior.
The details of the study indicate not only the infliction of pain but also ineffectiveness in a significant number of cases - even under controlled conditions led by “experts” like yourself. And somehow it was the two dogs who were shocked more than 20x in a session who were disqualified, and not the trainers who continued to shock the dogs until they reached the 20x threshold.
Your involvement in both shock collar training and the so-called “positive reinforcement” training groups in the study further raises concerns especially since the methods presented for positive reinforcement were not representative of established, humane training practices.
A modern approach involves marking a desirable behavior and reinforcing it consistently across different contexts, not merely “calling” a dog back with food.
The study's design misleads the public into believing positive reinforcement is ineffective by setting it up to fail without proper proofing and controlled settings. As a figure in the aversive training community, your participation in this study and its promotion raise ethical questions, especially given your awareness of the broader scientific consensus against aversive methods.
It is concerning that your involvement could mislead the public and dog guardians into believing shock collars are an appropriate and humane training tool.
The modern dog training community requests that you cease all public education efforts that promote pain, fear, and intimidation-based methods which are holding our industry back and which put the public at risk. Our understanding is that you have scheduled a workshop overseas, where based on your history you are likely to advocate for these outdated techniques. These methods contradict the ethical standards for dog welfare, especially in countries like the United Kingdom.
As a practitioner of dog training, we urge you to reconsider your approach and align your practices with scientifically supported, humane training methods, consistent with the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists and their international counterparts.
The modern dog training community stands ready to escalate public discourse and scrutiny if these unethical practices persist in the interest of public health and safety.
Zak George
We also acknowledge the involvement of Dr. Clive Wynne from Arizona State University as a co-author of this study. While Dr. Wynne’s academic standing is now under scrutiny due to his endorsement of research methods that caused 100% of the shock collar group dogs to yelp in pain, we remain focused on addressing the immediate welfare concerns this study raises.
The study in question: Johnson, A.C., & Wynne, C.D.L. (2024). “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs.” Animals, 14(18), 2632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632
