E-fence Policy Process
It was about time Brown Dog Coalition made a change. For too long we had allowed an e-fence loophole when contractually obligating adopters to forgo the use of aversive training methods on their adopted dog. So, we collected statements from pet industry professionals, scientific studies, the mechanics of electronic fencing, and opposing arguments to inform our discussion and final decision. We hope this information can be used as a model for other animal welfare groups to create positive change within their organizations.
Here are the steps we took to inform our policy to finally and formally oppose the use of electronic fencing, invisible fencing, and containment systems that rely on shock, static, or vibrating correction:
Part I: We asked the professionals
Invisible Fence (IF) says: “When your pet’s Computer Collar Receiver crosses into the signal field, it first provides an audible warning tone, then provides a gentle static correction that reminds him he’s reached the limits of his boundary. The level of correction is customized to your pet, ensuring it stays at the right level.”
The Canine Company (IF distributor): “Should your pet cross the boundary, the collar will continuously tone and correct until your pet turns around and comes back into your yard.”
Joan Forry, PhD, CPDT-KA, CTC, says: “Dogs can learn that it’s not that approaching the barrier is what causes the shock, but they may associate the shock with something else that was nearby. And, because fear is easily generalized, this impacts dogs’ welfare and quality of life. I have worked cases where dogs have experienced the following behavioral problems directly as a result of being shocked by their containment systems: Acquiring fear of walking on grass and avoiding toileting on grass, aggressing (barking, lunging, snapping, biting) toward cars or people passing by, fleeing and hiding in response to beeping sounds that may sound similar to the warning beep (such as microwaves or phone notifications), or acquiring fear of specific persons because said person happened to be nearby when the dog was inadvertently shocked. These behaviors are not easy to resolve.”
Quotes from shelters and other rescue groups were collected and can be shared with names redacted—email us here.
Part II: We read the studies—there is a mountain of evidence
China Lucy, Mills Daniel, Cooper Jonathan (2020) Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive Reinforcement. Frontiers. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.00508/full
Cooper JJ, Cracknell N, Hardiman J, Wright H, Mills D (2014) The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102722
Herron Meghan E, Shofer Frances S, Reisner Ilana R (2009) Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011
Masson Sylvia, de la Vega Silvia, Gazzano Angelo, Mariti Chiara, Da Graca Pereira Concalo, Halsberghe Christine, Muser Leyvraz Anneli, McPeake Kevin, Schoening Barbara (2018) Electronic training devices: Discussion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the position statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.02.006
Schalke E., Stichnoth J., Ott S., Jones-Baade R. (2007) Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.002
Schilder Matthijs B.H, van der Borg Joanne A.M (2004) Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.10.004
Part III: We learned how and why electronic fences work
Positive punishment: “by adding something the animal dislikes or finds aversive, you decrease the likelihood the behavior will occur again.”
Negative reinforcement: “by removing something aversive, you increase the likelihood a behavior will occur again.”
Definitions provided by American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB).
How electronic fences work:
1. An audible warning tone is administered as the dog approaches the invisible boundary.
2. A static correction is added when the dog exceeds the limits of the invisible boundary (positive punishment).
3. A static correction is removed when the dog returns to the limits of the invisible boundary (negative reinforcement).
Why they work:
Operant conditioning: Consequences drive behavior and make them more or less likely to occur. Without consequences (good or bad), behavior will not change.
If the electronic fence collar did not hurt, it would not work.
Part IV: We unpacked opposing arguments
• E-fence collars work differently than a shock collar.
False. Just like any other electronic collar, a static correction/buzz/vibration is being added to decrease the likelihood of an unwanted behavior (leaving the boundary), and being removed to increase the likelihood of a wanted behavior (staying within the boundary).
• E-fence collars don’t hurt, aren’t painful, and only use the beep.
False. Even if the static correction is not painful when we administer it on ourselves, if the dog’s behavior changes, it is painful enough to keep the dog from leaving the yard. The static correction has to be so painful (or they have to fear that pain so much) that a dog won’t chase squirrels or outdoor cats or kids riding bikes or whatever is going on beyond the invisible line.
From IF: “Many pets only feel the correction once or twice and don't challenge the system afterwards. It is important to note that we have thousands of different customizable corrections and the correction used is based on the personality of your pet, not the size or breed.” – In other words, because pain thresholds are different for every dog, the static correction can be “customized” to how painful it needs to be to work for a specific dog.
The warning tone/beep precedes the static correction, and because pain is a powerful punisher, a dog will learn quickly how to avoid it. This is why dogs retreat at the sound of the beep—because the beep is a predictor of a static correction. A beep alone will not change behavior until it is paired with the static correction.
• Disqualifying e-fence users will disqualify loving adopters.
True. There are plenty of people who are well-intentioned and who love dogs but use outdated or uninformed training methods. We can rule an applicant out because they use an e-fence, or we can follow up with an educational article, or two, and alternatives, and ask if they plan to continue using the e-fence, which we have done in the past with success.
• An e-fence is the only option for some people and beats getting hit by a car.
False. Safe and humane containment can be achieved without using an electronic fence. Letting dogs out without containment is not the only other alternative. Leashed walks, a long line, and a variety of physical fencing options are all alternatives.
Part V: We made a plan going forward—not everyone who knows better, will do better
If we let applicants decide for themselves, then we leave our dogs and organization vulnerable.
If we place a dog in a home with an e-fence and the dog has an adverse reaction and needs to be returned, then we will be out of a foster home, have to invest money in training a now fearful or aggressive dog, and have to find a new adoptive home for a less adoptable dog.
Electronic fencing costs the organization time, money, foster homes, and resources, and costs dogs their freedom from pain and fear.
Policy unanimously voted in by the Board of Directors and added to the adoption contract on November 10, 2019:
“
I will not use aversive training methods, such as prong, choke, or shock collars. I will not train my dog using force, coercion, or use fear-inducing tactics including but not limited to physical restraint or loud noises. This also includes electronic fencing, alpha rolls, poking, kicking hanging, grabbing, pinning, and shaking.