training
E-Fence Fallout Daniel Antolec presents the case of labradoodle Charlee and the ensuing fallout that occurred after her guardians, believing they were keeping her safe, installed an electronic containment system in their yard
M
y clients Maggie and George* had both grown up with dogs. Now, as a married couple, they were ready for a puppy of their own. In 2009, they bought a house with a large lot that was ideal for a dog and joyful labradoodle, Charlee, thus entered their lives. As the house was located along a busy boulevard they, of course, wanted to keep Charlee safe while enjoying the yard, so they considered installing either a physical fence or an electronic containment system (ECS). Building a physical fence for a large yard would be expensive and they decided to seek advice from others before proceeding. Charlee’s breeder was not keen on the idea of an ECS and pointed out that it would do nothing to keep their puppy safe from anyone or anything which entered the yard and she would be trapped if the ECS prevented escape. Unfortunately, she did not explicitly counsel against it, and so Maggie and George went ahead with the ECS installation anyway. An ECS consists of a wire which is buried underground at whatever perimeter is determined to be acceptable and the dog wears a collar with an electronic device which senses when she is in proximity to the wire. The model Charlee wore could be configured to deliver a beep, and/or an electric shock, or both. If the collar got too close to the wire it became charged and delivered a beep and/or shock. The family chose to contract with a national ECS franchise to install the system. As George explained: “Such a franchise is not necessarily owned by a dog person. It is more likely a businessperson and the instal lation was nothing more than a transaction.” George stated the installer “did not do much” in terms of teaching Charlee. One thing in particular stuck in George’s memory and it both ers him to this day. Apparently, the installer kept flicking his finger on the tip of Charlee’s nose “to get her focus.” Maggie recalls that he did so because Charlee was not sitting. Neither of them appreciated the way he treated their puppy with George explaining that, “it set the tone.” George described Charlee’s response as a look that suggested she was wondering why they were allowing this person to hurt her. She was about 6 or 9 months old at the time. George still feels bad that he did not stop the installer from treating Charlee as he did, and I heard the enduring sadness in his voice as he expressed the words. First, the installer put the collar on Charlee so she could get used to it. Then, he configured the collar to beep when she was taken to the buried ECS wire. Ultimately, he configured the collar to beep, and then deliver shock when she was close to the wire. The final step was to re peatedly take Charlee too close to the edge of the yard so shock would be delivered, until she “understood” to stay within the yard. The in staller spent less than an hour with George, Maggie and Charlee and he never followed up with them to find out how things were going. It was a onceanddone transaction.
Repeated Shocks Charlee was a very social dog who loved meeting new people and dogs who passed by the house. Shortly after the ECS was installed she was in the yard and saw a dog on the boulevard median which divided four lanes of traffic — and went to greet the dog. As she passed the buried wire she was shocked, and then she remained on the median. George
28
BARKS from the Guild/March 2020
© Charlee’s Stewards
Charlee was a social dog who loved meeting new people and dogs — shortly after the ECS was installed she saw a dog across the road and went to greet him, getting shocked as she passed the buried wire, making her too afraid to return to her yard
and Maggie described her as being afraid to return to the yard. George was immediately upset that the ECS was not working as promised, which defeated the reason for installing it in the first place. Research has shown the escape rate is higher for dogs kept within an ECS than for dogs within a physical fence (Starinsky, Lord & Herron, 2017). Shortly after that unfortunate event Charlee was with her family in a room at the rear of the home where they often relaxed together. She lay on the floor beside her guardians, still wearing the shock collar. George suddenly heard the collar beeping and then Charlee was being shocked. Repeatedly. He and Maggie were deeply disturbed by the thought that their puppy was being shocked while inside the home, in the very room she most enjoyed. They quickly removed the collar and George began investigating the matter. What he found was an electrical wire tacked to the basement ceiling rafters, directly beneath where Charlie had been laying. He estimated there were perhaps two or three inches of flooring material between the wire and Charlee. Said George: “The wire carried an electric current and generated an electronic field with the collar.”
