New study may cast doubt on previous e-collar studies

[welsh]

This is a new study which casts doubt on previous studies that have relied on salivary cortisol to indicate when dogs are under stress. This is important to hunting dog trainers because it affects some of the leading studies that have criticized the use of e-collars.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...39724016300418

A quick summary: cortisol is a hormone released when a dog is under stress. Many researchers have used the level of cortisol in a dog's saliva to indicate whether the dog is stressed out in a particular situation. It is taken as given that stress is bad, i.e. that where dogs are stressed out, we ought to be concerned for their welfare.

The authors of this most recent study contacted other researchers, collected their data, and then looked at how the data varied between the studies. The overall finding here is that cortisol levels vary widely based on a number of factors, so studies based on cortisol must be very carefully controlled. And of course the implication of that finding is that some of the existing studies may be bunk.

The leading study on e-collars, as it stands, bases its key finding on cortisol levels.

[vom Dufenshmirtz]

Thanks, welsh. It'd be interesting to compare two groups of dogs. One trained with e-c and the other with "traditional methods".
The groups would have to be as similar as possible, esp. at the level of training, so no clicker trained ankle biters.

[Sharon]

Very interesting post Welsh. Thanks.

[MikePal]

sure adds credence to the old saying amoung trainers: "The only thing two dog trainers can agree on is what the third trainer is doing it wrong."

[welsh]

LOL. Applies equally to science at times.

[Waftrudnir]

well, the analysis you cited does not exactly talk about e-collars...

The only real thing this study found is:
[COLOR=#2E2E2E]Intact female dogs were found to have higher cortisol concentration than neutered females, intact males, and neutered males

it does state that previous studies might have issues; e.g. because important parameters were not recorded
[COLOR=#2E2E2E]Time of day and influence of circadian and/or diurnal rhythm on salivary cortisol concentration is a key consideration in the design of studies using cortisol. The analysis of sampling time effect was limited by the raw data collected in recruited studies.

It also states some long known facts from human models. This really questions the use of cortisol levels as a simple indicator for
"canine stress" in the first place.
[COLOR=#2E2E2E]Cortisol is a complex stress hormone, and as such, is not easy to interpret. Human psychological literature finds that declining cortisol is not necessarily good and rising cortisol is not necessarily bad [58][COLOR=#2E2E2E] and [59][COLOR=#2E2E2E]. [COLOR=#2E2E2E]

we all know the left doesn't need facts when they get all the publicity needed to indoctrinate the general public
but everyone who ever used an e-collar (properly!) knows that it's better for the dog and handler than any of the old school methods.

[welsh]

well, the analysis you cited does not exactly talk about e-collars...

No, it does not. But as I pointed out, the leading e-collar study uses salivary cortisol as the basis of its findings. I know what this study found. And I know enough about the other research to see its implications. Evidently, you're not up on the research.

E-collars are not good or bad depending on your position on the political spectrum. They are overused, and usually misused, even by people who think they use them correctly. And the alternatives are not necessarily punitive methods. If you have decided that e-collar studies are a matter of "the left" pushing an agenda, you've disqualified yourself from serious discussion.

[Waftrudnir]

...
E-collars are not good or bad depending on your position on the political spectrum.
....
If you have decided that e-collar studies are a matter of "the left" pushing an agenda, you've disqualified yourself from serious discussion.

thanks for the update on your post - especially getting more personal. I'm sure you imagine that PETA and similar "animal rights anarchists" are equally distributed throughout the political spectrum

[Waftrudnir]

I'm appreciative of someone sharing articles on here, but the link you try to make between some meta data analysis and specific studies cannot be substantiated.
Concerns existed long before, but that doesn't mean some studies get more attention than others - if it fits someone's agenda...

[welsh]

These studies are being taken seriously by people who are interested in the evidence. If you want to be taken seriously, you argue the evidence.