Deter predation of livestock by using shock/electronic dog-training collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1. A replicated study in 1997 on pasture at a site in Utah, USA (Andelt et al. 1999) found that electric shock collars reduced the frequency of attacks by captive coyotes Canis latrans on lambs. During week 1 (five coyotes each spending 4–6 hours with lambs) there was a total of 10 attempted lamb attacks. During week 2 (five coyotes each spending two hours with lambs) there was one attempted attack. There were no attempted attacks in week 4, one in week 7 and none in weeks 11, 16 or 22 (five coyotes each spending two hours with lambs during each study week). All attempted attacks ceased upon electric shock administration. Five captive male coyotes (aged 5–9 years), which killed lambs in trials, were studied. Each was fitted with a Model 100 Lite electronic dog-training collar, set at maximum shock intensity. During each trial, one coyote and one lamb were held in a 679 m² enclosure. Shocks were administered when the coyote actively pursued the lamb.

   Study and other actions tested

   Referenced paper

   Andelt W.F., Phillips R.L., Gruver K.S. & Guthrie J.W. (1999) Coyote predation on domestic sheep deterred with electronic dog-training collar. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27, 12-18.

2. A replicated, controlled study in 2002 of captive wolves Canis lupus in Minnesota, USA (Shivik et al. 2003) found that electronic dog-training collars did not reduce the amount of food consumed by wolves Canis lupus. Wolves fitted with dog-training collars, which activated when close to the food, consumed 43% of food offered. This was not significantly different to the 84% of food eaten by wolves where no deterrent was used. Four groups of 1–4 captive wolves were each offered 1 kg of sled-dog chow for one hour during June or July 2002. The wolves wore electronic dog-training collars, which emitted an electric shock when ≤2 m from the food. Four further groups of 1–4 wolves were offered the same food, without any deterrent.

   Study and other actions tested

   Referenced paper

   Shivik J.A., Treves A. & Callahan P. (2003) Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: primary and secondary repellents. Conservation Biology, 17, 1531-1537.

3. A replicated study in 1998–2001 on a cattle farm in Wisconsin, USA (Schultz et al. 2005) found that electric shock collars deterred gray wolves Canis lupis from predating livestock. In the first year, one calf was killed (possibly by non-collared wolves) after the alpha-female wolf was fitted with a shock collar, compared to nine killed earlier that year. Two were killed over the following two years (by non-collared wolves). A second wolf, collared in the fourth study year and thought to be the new alpha female of the pack, appeared to stay off the farm while the collar were operational. Other pack members continued predating calves, and the pack was subsequently translocated. A female wolf was fitted with an electric shock-collar on 14 May 1998. This activated when she was ≤300 m from cattle pasture. A replacement collar, operating from 26 April to 15 August 1999, beeped and shocked when she came within 0.4 km. In 2000, the collar operated from 26 April–August with beeping only (no shock). The second female wolf’s shock-collar operated from 31 May to 13 August 2001.

   Study and other actions tested

   Referenced paper

   Schultz R.N., Jonas K.W., Skuldt L.H. & Wydeven A.P. (2005) Experimental use of dog-training shock collars to deter depredation by gray wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33, 142-148.

4. A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2003–2004 in a forested area in Michigan, USA (Hawley et al. 2009) found that wolves Canis lupus wearing electric shock collars avoided baited areas where shocks were administered, but aversion did not persist. Shocked wolves made fewer visits to the detection zone when shocked (treatment period: 9 visits/wolf) relative to pre-treatment (19 visits/wolf) and post-treatment (16 visits/wolf) periods. There was no corresponding decrease for non-shocked wolves (treatment: 18 visits/wolf; pre-treatment: 21; post-treatment: 19). Shocked wolves spent less time/visit in detection zones during the treatment period (13 minutes/wolf) relative to pre-treatment (77 minutes/wolf) and post-treatment (20 minutes/wolf) periods. No decrease was detected for non-shocked wolves (treatment: 63 minutes/wolf; pre-treatment: 76; post-treatment: 47). Ten wolves (one per pack) were radio-collared in 2003–2004. Five wolves (randomly selected) also received electric shock collars (Innotek Training Shock Collar). A dead deer was placed in each pack’s territory every two to three days. Collared wolves ≤75 m from baits were detected and logged over two weeks (pre-treatment). Treatment wolves, ≤30 m from baits, were shocked (for 13 seconds) over the following two weeks (treatment). For two further weeks (post-treatment), collared wolf visits to the 75 m detection zone were logged.

   Study and other actions tested

   Referenced paper

   Hawley J.E., Gehring T.M., Schultz R.N., Rossler S.T. & Wydeven A.P. (2009) Assessment of shock collars as nonlethal management for wolves in Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73, 518-525.

5. A replicated study in 2005–2006 in a mostly forested area of Wisconsin, USA (Rossler et al. 2012) found that electric shock collars reduced visits by gray wolves Canis lupus to baited zones. Shock-collared wolves spent less time in shock zones when collars were active than did wolves without shock collars (with shock collar: 1 min/day in baited zone; no shock collar: 14 min/day). The pattern continued post-treatment when collars were not activated (shock collar: 1 min/day; no shock collar: 21 min/day). Fourteen adult wolves (one in each pack) were caught. Ten had a radio collar and shock unit fitted. Four had a radio collar only fitted. Each pack was baited with a dead deer every three days. The shock zone was a 70-m radius from the bait. Shock collars were automatically activated within this zone during a 40-day shock period. Bait placement and monitoring continued for a further 40-day non-shock period. Radio data loggers recorded wolf visits to bait sites between May and September of 2005 and 2006.

   Study and other actions tested

   Referenced paper

   Rossler S.T., Gehring T.M., Schultz R.N., Rossler M.T., Wydeven A.P. & Hawley J.E. (2012) Shock collars as a site-aversive conditioning tool for wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 36, 176-184.