SHOCK COLLARS: WHAT MANUFACTURERS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW

Faulty electronics. Inconsistent performance. Continuous shock 143 times the electrical energy of a single pulse. If you know someone who uses a shock collar to control their dog, our advice is to have it checked by an electronics expert, or throw it in the bin… Do share, spread the message.

There have been many studies on the negative effects of shock collars on the wellbeing of dogs, but very few on the reliability of their electronics. A recent UK study (Lines et al., 2013) revealed some disturbing truths. The researchers identified 170 different models of shock collar freely available in the UK and marketed under 14 different brand names, all operated by a wireless remote control handset. 13 collar models from 9 brands were selected and the researchers then acquired two of each model, 26 collars in all, for testing in the laboratory. Most of the collars were bought as new online, with the remainder being borrowed from dog trainers.

There was consistency of the electrical output from collars of the same model. However, for collars of different models, even from the same manufacturer, the electrical output varied widely, yet this information was not given to the consumer, either in the instruction manuals or on the manufacturers website. What this means is that a setting of 4, for example on one collar is not necessarily the same as 4 on a different model from the same manufacturer.

Most of the collars could deliver shock over a range of levels as both a momentary pulse, lasting for between 4mS and 500mS (half a second), and as a time-limited continuous series of pulses lasting for between 7 and 13 seconds. However, the way the continuous shock was generated in some of the collars was concerning.

In 6 of the collars the strength of the shock a dog would receive from a 1-second continuous pulse set at the mid-level setting was the same as the shock the dog would receive from a momentary pulse set at maximum level. That is, a one-second continuous pulse of shock contained up to 143 times the electrical energy as the equivalent level of momentary shock. This difference from the dog’s perspective is huge and there should be clear warnings in the instruction manuals that these collars function in this way. To make matters worse, in their manuals most manufacturers recommended using a continuous shock setting until the dog showed the required behaviour.

For another collar, the instructions indicated that the duration of continuous shock for the device was 8 seconds, but in fact it was 11 seconds.
2 brand new collars had electrical faults. One collar intermittently delivered its maximum shock regardless of the level chosen on the remote handset. This was related to a fault in the level setting dial and its circuitry. The other collar also had a faulty dial that delivered a lower level of shock when set halfway between 2 level settings. These faults may reflect the quality of the electronic components being used, and in any event demonstrate serious design flaws that should never be allowed to happen. All collars should incorporate safety cut-out circuits, as is done with other electrical equipment used directly on human skin.

COAPE’S VIEW: The many inconsistencies and faults found in a random sample of just 26 collars is not acceptable as it may reflect a wider problem across the industry of an apparent lack of quality control and attention to detail by manufacturers. It is certainly not reassuring for those dog owners choosing to use these devices to train their dogs and raises serious welfare issues for the dogs themselves.