10/09/2024
Would you do me a favour?
I have two questions.
Firstly, would you describe the purpose of a head collar as shown on the dog below as being a tool that is designed to
A. Apply an uncomfortable pressure on the muzzle of the dog each time the dog pulls into it, thereby causing the dog to learn that ‘not pulling’ avoids the discomfort, or that backing up and ‘giving to the pressure’ escapes it?
Or
B. Something other than what the tool is designed to do that you have dreamed up?
Please don’t say ‘management tool’ as that means nothing in terms of explaining how and why the tool is intended to alter the behaviour of the animal.
In short, is a head halter designed and intended to apply an aversive stimulus (tightening pressure) which the dog is required to learn to escape and avoid by ‘not pulling’ through trial and error learning?
2. Would you expect a team of professional, behavioural scientists to acknowledge that this tool is
A - not designed to work as a positive reinforcer (or reward), but as a negative reinforcer (an aversive stimulus to be removed or avoided by the animal), and
B - If it is being used, ought the researchers not include the fact that this stimulus is used, especially if used by a ‘reward training’ trainer, during the training sessions used to provide the data for a research paper evaluating the effects and effectiveness of ‘reward based’ training, compared to training including electronic training collars?
Is it too much to write “There were elements of the ‘reward based’ training group that included the use of an aversive tool (including the application and removal of general leash pressure) to seemingly counteract the size and strength differences between the trainer and the dog. Equally, for the majority of aversive inclusion in the e-collar group, the principal aversive applied was not the e-collar itself, but rather the training style and mannerisms of the the trainer, making it difficult to separate the effect of the electronic training collar from the effect of the individual trainer when establishing causation upon the overall behaviours displayed and observed from the dogs”.
Or am I alone in thinking that transparency matters where published research is then used to determine the fate of millions of animals?
Thank you in anticipation.