Creative Commons Creative Commons License Deed AtribuciónNoComercialSinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia (CC BYNCND 2.5 CO) This is a humanreadable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license. Advertencia Usted es libre para: Bajo los siguientes términos: Aviso: Compartir-copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato El licenciante no puede revocar estas libertades en tanto usted siga los términos de la licencia Atribución-Usted debe darle crédito a esta obra de manera adecuada, proporcionando un enlace a la licencia, e indicando si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que usted o su uso tienen el apoyo del licenciante. NoComercial-Usted no puede hacer uso del material con fines comerciales. Sin Derivar-Si usted mezcla, transforma o crea nuevo material a partir de esta obra, usted no podrá distribuir el material modificado. No hay restricciones adicionales-Usted no puede aplicar términos legales ni medidas tecnológicas que restrinjan legalmente a otros hacer cualquier uso permitido por la licencia. Usted no tiene que cumplir con la licencia para los materiales en el dominio público o cuando su uso esté permitido por una excepción o limitación aplicable. No se entregan garantías. La licencia podría no entregarle todos los permisos que necesita para el uso que tenga previsto. Por ejemplo, otros derechos como relativos a publicidad, privacidad, o derechos morales pueden limitar la forma en que utilice el material.

BackgroundThe use of electronic training devices for dog training is controversial. The aims of this study were to give an indication of the extent to which dog owners use these devices in England, identify factors associated with their use, and compare owner report of outcomes. A convenience sample of dog owners in England was used to identify numbers using electronic training devices and identify reasons for use. Factors associated with use of remote e-collars only were determined by comparing dogs trained using these devices with two control populations matched for reason of use (recall / chasing problems). Comparison groups were: those using other ‘negative reinforcement / positive punishment’ training techniques, and those using ‘positive reinforcement / negative punishment’ based methods. A multinominal logistic regression model was used to compare factors between categories of training method. Owner reported success for use was compared using chi-squared analysis.ResultsFor England only, 3.3% (n = 133) owners reported using remote activated e-collars, 1.4% (n = 54) reported use of bark activated e-collars, and 0.9% (n = 36) reported using electronic boundary fences. In comparison with the e-collar group, owners using reward based training methods for recall / chasing were 2.8 times more likely to be female and 2.7 times less likely to have attended agility training. Owners using other aversive methods for recall / chasing were 2.8 times more likely to have attended puppy classes than those using e-collars. However, the model only explained 10% variance between groups. A significantly higher proportion of owners in the reward group reported training success than those in the e-collar group.ConclusionsIn conclusion, a fairly low proportion of owners select to use electronic training devices. For a population matched by reason for training method use, characteristics of dogs, including occurrence of undesired behaviours do not appear to distinguish between training methods. Rather, owner gender and attendance at training classes appear more important, although explaining a relatively small amount of variance between groups. More owners using reward based methods for recall / chasing report a successful outcome of training than those using e-collars.

Aggression between dogs is common and can result in injury. The aims of this study were to estimate prevalence, evaluate co-occurrence with human-directed aggression, and investigate potential risk factors, using a cross-sectional convenience sample of dog owners. Aggression (barking, lunging, growling or biting) towards unfamiliar dogs was reported to currently occur, by 22 per cent of owners, and towards other dogs in the household, by 8 per cent. A low level of concordance between dog and human-directed aggression suggested most dogs were not showing aggression in multiple contexts. Aggression towards other dogs in the household was associated with increasing dog age, use of positive punishment/negative reinforcement training techniques, and attending ring-craft classes. Aggression towards other dogs on walks was associated with location of questionnaire distribution, owner age, age of dog, origin of dog, dog breed type, use of positive punishment/negative reinforcement training techniques and attending obedience classes for more than four weeks. In both, the amount of variance explained by models was low (<15 per cent), suggesting that unmeasured factors mostly accounted for differences between groups. These results suggest general characteristics of dogs and owners which contribute to intraspecific aggression, but also highlight that these are relatively minor predictors.

: Fear of fireworks in pets is very common and can impact on the animals’ welfare, as well as leading to more severe problems. Management in itself is not adequate and drugs do not cure the problem. Changing the fear response can be successful, but needs to be done carefully and gradually, using desensitisation and counter‐conditioning. Veterinary staff are in a good position to help prevent fear of fireworks developing in the first place, by discussing habituation from an early age. Although most pets are unlikely ever to enjoy fireworks, owners should do their best to make it tolerable for them.