Our cave-dwelling ancestors probably argued about dog training techniques as far back as the domestication of these animals more than 15,000 years ago. We know Roman farmers were exchanging views in the second century BC when scholar Marcus Varro put pen to papyrus with his tips on how to get canines to herd livestock. And of course, debates over training methods still rage today.
The latest discussion concerns dog collars that are controlled remotely to deliver an electric shock at the push of a button. Their use is already illegal in Wales and will be banned in Scotland soon, but is still permitted in England. UK charity the to ban these devices in England too.
There are many different approaches to dog training, but broadly speaking they divide into two categories: , as the collars do.
Advertisement
Advocates of the collars, or aversive training devices as they tend to be marketed, point out that they can be very effective at preventing unwanted behaviours. They are sometimes viewed by owners as a quick and easy solution. A commonly cited example is to prevent sheep-worrying.
Doggie desires
Some dogs have an overwhelming innate desire to chase sheep 鈥� a drive that is harnessed and controlled when training sheepdogs. However, untrained dogs cause injury and death to sheep every year, resulting in suffering of the livestock and economic loss to the farmer. every year to protect livestock. In theory, an electric shock will stop an out of control dog from chasing sheep and may also prevent it from doing so in the future because of the pain associated with that behaviour. Shock collars are also used to teach dogs not to display signs of aggression such as growling or snarling when around people or other animals.
The problem is that this type of punishment supresses the desire to act rather than changing it. So, a dog does not lose the desire to chase sheep, it simply fears the electric shock more than it wants to chase sheep.
Likewise, a dog that gets shocked when it shows signs of aggression simply learns not to display these signs. The underlying cause of the aggression is not addressed, potentially making the dog more dangerous because warning signs that it may attack are absent. It has been shown that aggressive dogs can become more aggressive with punishment-based training.
No quick fix
In addition, it can be difficult to deliver the shock at the right moment, even for experienced trainers, and sometimes the dog will link it to the wrong behaviour or won鈥檛 be able to link it to anything. Punishment can induce fear, anxiety, confusion and stress, which may result in a dog becoming dangerous or aggressive towards its owners. This is bad for the dog鈥檚 emotional well-being and increases the risk of human injury. All these problems can arise when shock collars are being used by responsible owners and trainers. The pain and distress caused by irresponsible, ignorant or sadistic use would be severe.
All of this is why the Dogs Trust champions reward-based training. Research shows that this is as effective at changing behaviour as punishment techniques. Positive reinforcement techniques increase the dog鈥檚 drive to engage in a desirable behaviour, rather than making the dog frightened to behave in the inappropriate manner. They can alter the dog鈥檚 emotional state to a positive one.
The truth is that the majority of behavioural problems in dogs are avoidable and聽many are related聽to聽inadequate training, inappropriate punitive techniques or a total lack of training. Owners and trainers then resort to devices such as electric shock collars to salvage a situation that was preventable with appropriate owner and puppy education.
Using rewards to train is not a recent development. In 1882 Stephen Hammond authored a book, Practical Dog Training, advising that dogs should be praised and rewarded with meat for displaying a desired behaviour. The final word should perhaps go to army officer and author William Hutchinson, another advocate of positive training. In his 1848 book he wrote: 鈥淏e to his virtues ever kind. Be to his faults a little blind.鈥� I鈥檒l second that.
