This was just published: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0102722
Printable View
This was just published: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0102722
What a poor and lacking study. It is clear from the get go what results they were looking for. Their study is fraught with problems from the beginning and can be clearly viewed from an anti collar position.
The tasks chosen to make final conclusions are lacking and since they are. then hence the results.
Substantial and higher order skills were not selected. Had they been then different results re e collar would have been used in light of superior performance on specified tasks.
This group knew very clearly what they wanted to show. I would love to show the some field trial dogs performing higher order skills at a much better consistency then what they have quoted.
This is best summed up as a very low level test measurement with predetermined results and extremely poor quality control, lack of a substantial field with measurement devices leading to an incorrect hypothesis.....................geez what crap!
Did you read "the whole article " it is very lengthy, or did you make your summary on just the first section .?Quote:
Originally Posted by krakadawn
I have seen preliminary reports of these findings, which have been touted by e-collar opponents as the final proof that e-collars are bad for dogs. But when you look at the study in detail it is clear that those reports have been cherry-picking the findings, which are actually quite weak and do not really support the conclusions the researchers have drawn.
The entire finding is based on the assessment of a "tense" posture, yawning, and less interaction with the environment, while numerous other indicators of compromised welfare (such as tail carriage) showed no effect.
The researchers fail to mention, in suggesting that less interaction with the environment reflected compromised welfare, that this factor was related to dogs in the control group being given fewer commands and being allowed to mess around more. Yawning and apparent tension could reflect the same difference in approach.
So in brief, the researchers have cherry-picked a few measures out of an ambiguous study as proof of their hypothesis, while ignoring the contrary evidence. Junk science.
Yes Jaycee I read the whole article, especially their poorly thought out findings . Welch is spot on with his response.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
the INTRODUCTION states that the testing was done on pet/companion animals... so one has to wonder how far the training goes... I mean simply we as hunters.. training a working dog .. pet yes, but working non the less, expect a little more from our " pets". .. or at least I do. I can train a dog to sit with a hot dog, but try to get a hound to handle off leash with a please come here attitude, just doesn't work ... and I don't care how many treats you have in your pocket.... when I was doing the hrc hunt tests, I started out with reward training. but it only allowed me, as a handler, to achieve a level I was not happy with.... so, e collar was introduced... first to me, then the dog.... level of training improved greatly. enjoyed that dog till he passed.... to each his own, but I think a lot of the problem lies in the belief that a dog is a person..... they are not, nor ever have, nor ever will... 2 cents
Ding, ding, ding ... Agree with both Krakadawn and Welsh!Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The aim of the study was not to measure the effectiveness of e-collars, but to provide some scientific basis for regulatory decisions in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by beagle2618
Unfortunately, it's a junk-scientific basis....
There's a place for both food reward and the e collar.
Food reward works fine , (as does the clicker), when you are working closely with the dog as you would be with a companion animal. However , when the dog is 200 yards+ out there giving you the finger when called ,
an e -collar is a very effective tool.
If the dog is yawning and showing other signs of anxiety then the e collar has not been introduced properly or is being used at an unnecessarily high level.
.................................................. ..........
The abstract is confusing as they mix comments about the 9 first tested dog results ,with the 63 tested dog results.
For my own understanding I resorted it.
"This study investigated the welfare consequences of training dogs in the field with manually operated electronic devices (e-collars).
The preliminary study on 9 dogs:During preliminary studies ( 9 dogs)there were negative changes in dogs' behaviour on application of electric stimuli, and elevated cortisol post-stimulation. These dogs had generally experienced high intensity stimuli without pre-warning cues during training.
larger , controlled study:
63 pet dogs referred for recall related problems were assigned to one of three Groups: Treatment Group A were trained by industry approved trainers using e-collars;
Control Group B trained by the same trainers but without use of e-collars;
and Group C trained by members of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, UK again without e-collar stimulation (n = 21 for each Group). Dogs received two 15 minute training sessions per day for 4–5 days. Training sessions were recorded on video for behavioural analysis. Saliva and urine were collected to assay for cortisol over the training period. . In the subsequent larger, controlled study, trainers used lower settings with a pre-warning function and behavioural responses were less marked.
Nevertheless, Group A dogs spent significantly more time tense, yawned more often and engaged in less environmental interaction than Group C dogs. There was no difference in urinary corticosteroids between Groups. Salivary cortisol in Group A dogs was not significantly different from that in Group B or Group C, though Group C dogs showed higher measures than Group B throughout sampling. Following training 92% of owners reported improvements in their dog's referred behaviour, and there was no significant difference in reported efficacy across Groups. Owners of dogs trained using e-collars were less confident of applying the training approach demonstrated.
From what I read above I don't see how the following conclusion can be drawn. The part in red is saying that Group C ( no collar) had a higher level of cortisol than group A ( the collared group.)
their conclusion:
"These findings suggest that there is no consistent benefit to be gained from e-collar training but greater welfare concerns compared with positive reward based training."
What the abstract fails to mention is that Group A (e-collar) dogs showed no difference in the time they were tense when compared to Group B (non e-collar, with e-collar trainer) dogs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon (quoting paper)
There was a difference in time spent in a tense state, as dogs in Group C spent less time tense than dogs in Group A (Tukey, t = 3.14, p = 0.007), but no difference between Groups A and B or B and C (t<1.87, p>0.16).
That there was no significant difference A-B or B-C ought to remind us that "significantly" here means not "large" but "statistically valid." The failure to find a statistically significant difference A-B suggests that the difference A-C may not be attributable to e-collar use.
Also note that the Tukey test is a post-hoc test, i.e. something used after the fact when the initial design fails to find a result. So what this really tells us, in my view, is that the design of the experiment needs to be refined.
Again, I turn to the fact that group A and B dogs received twice the number of commands compared to group C dogs, which obviously explains the difference in time spent "interacting with the environment" (sniffing things, walking around, generally messing about) more effectively than some welfare assumption. And a dog that is on command is much more likely to be "tense" than one that is smelling the flowers, so this may account for the difference in time spent tense, also. Given the difference in training approach between A & B dogs and group C dogs, the welfare measures used are inappropriate.
People plugging this study have cited higher salivary cortisol in group A dogs returning to the training grounds three months after the fact as proof that those dogs found the training stressful. But obviously, the higher salivary cortisol in group C dogs during the training ought to give us pause ... we can't say that salivary cortisol means one thing during the training and another thing three months afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
Salivary cortisol levels are taken to indicate stress, but in fact are a shaky indicator as dogs may show higher salivary cortisol levels after exercise than when at rest ... "stress" does not always indicate an unpleasant experience. Try testing salivary cortisol in NHL players during a big game, then try telling them they shouldn't play hockey because it stresses them and stress is unpleasant. :)
Some researchers in the field have been pointing out that salivary cortisol is a bogus measure of welfare.
Previous research has shown that e-collars can cause long-term problems when misused. This experiment was intended to measure what happens when they are used according to best practices. The results tend to suggest that there are no real welfare concerns with proper use of the e-collar, but the authors are cherry-picking their findings to present the opposite conclusion.