User:J Bedrosian/sandbox

Non-lethal uses
(1) The Wildlife Society article addresses the use of shock collars as a way to prevent sheep from being preyed upon by wild coyotes. According to (Phillips, 1999) they tested these collars on coyotes for a four-month period and found that the collars stopped thirteen attacks on sheep herds. This also is said to deter future attacks by the tested coyotes. Collars have also been used on wolves for similar reasons. (1) This document is the assessment of the shock collar on wolves’ long-term behavior. The article talks about trying to alter wolves’ behavior over an extended period of time using the collar. The consensus was while it did have an effect while in use and temporally after it was removed, the study concluded that longer exposure would be needed in order to have any substantial evidence (Hawley, 2008). As far as non-lethal alternatives these two sources both concluded that shock collars are the most effective deterrence to predators. Both groups continued their research and the Wildlife Society has developed a new and improved version that eliminates the risk of neck injury when used on animals that previous versions caused. They have increased battery life and the durability of the unit. They devised a unit that is worn like a back pack for the animal. Previous versions caused excessive rubbing and soreness as well as being irritating for the animal to the point were they would try to take the harness off.

Training effectiveness
(3) The debate over the effectiveness of shock collars is highly debated, however it is not one sided. Each side has a wide variety of backers and activists from professors, to activists, and trainers. According to Dr. Overall in her letter regarding shock collars says that shock is not training. She states "There are now terrific scientific and research data that show the harm that shock collars can do behaviorally (Overall, 2005)”. She talks about how that most of the criteria for shock collars are mostly grounds for abuse. (2) She mentions that dogs exposed to shock trading have a higher risk of getting an undesirable outcome. She states that data so far only supports the “shock is neither an effective nor suitable training tool (Overall, 2005). (4) "She would later go onto state that she doesn’t believe that "we could get via electricity what we couldn't get by advanced training and challenging work”.

According to Pat Nolan, who has been training dogs for over thirty years, shock training is a key and effective use to train dogs (Nolan, 2011). According to his methods described in his book regular and fair use is key in shock training. He goes into detail about what fair use is, stating that keeping a regular training schedule is key and to set some boundaries your pet will understand (Nolan, 2011).

There are also pet organizations that stand firm in their beliefs that shock training is a cruel and inhumane way of training animals. Groups such as PETA and the Pet Professionalism Guild are avid activists for the banning of shock collars. Their main reason for opposing the collars is their claim that they simply do not work as training tools and cause harm to the animal. They represent a force free industry of pet professionals everywhere. Their stance on electric shock as a form of therapy is that of a non tolerance. They see it as abuse and that there are other alternatives that are much better replacements as a form of training. They believe that shock training is a form of punishment and that the punishment must be consistent timely and intensely (Trudge 2016). (5) Methods such as act are reward are more popular methods of animal training. They state the shock training requires constant shock training and that it can cause personality disorders in animals who go through this kind of training.

Banning of shock collars
(6) According to (BBC, 2018) Scotland is putting a ban on shock collars. (7) There is a petition signed by 20,000 people agreeing with the ban saying that shock collars are inhumane and ineffective as training devices. Further claims of the collars cause unnecessary suffering and potential permanent damage to their personality were made as well. Animal rights groups have been pushing in England as well for the banning of these collars. Fines of up to 2,000 pounds have been given for dogs just wearing then in some of the listed countries.

Edit**
1) don't say "this article addresses/ this document is" instead, use the authors name who wrote the article or say "in the article, 'Title of article', there is blah blah".

2) What is an undesirable outcome? 3) Maybe explain the debate in the first sentence

4) add something in front of the quote 5) what do you mean by "methods such as act are rewarded ..."?

6) Don't put BBC in parenthesis

7) cite the petition