# E-Collars Show Rapid Results, But Ethical Concerns Remain: The study confirms that e-collars can stop unwanted behaviors quickly, but the ethical implications and potential long-term welfare effects must not be overlooked.

# Long-Term Impacts on Dog Welfare Are Still Unclear: While no immediate signs of distress were observed, negative effects could surface over time. More research is needed to understand how e-collars impact a dog's emotional and psychological health in the long run.

# Risk of Misuse and Overreliance on E-Collars: The study may lead to the inappropriate use of e-collars in non-critical situations, making it essential to reserve such methods for extreme, life-threatening cases and ensure they are used by expert trainers only.

By Marco Adda

Recently, I have been involved by friend and colleague Roman Gottfried in a conversation on Facebook, where dogs passionate discuss a recent study on the efficacy of e-collars in dog training.

In the abstract of the study we read:

"The use of electronic shock collars (“e-collars”) is one of the most controversial topics in dog training. In this study, we compared e-collars to methods relying entirely on food rewards in order to stop dogs running after a lure. We found that dogs receiving shocks from e-collars stopped chasing a lure within two sessions of ten minutes of lure running per session. These dogs also refrained from chasing the lure in three out of four test sessions. Two groups of dogs trained with food rewards did not refrain from chasing the lure across five training sessions and failed all four test sessions. Aside from presumably pain-induced yelps in the dogs with e-collars when they received shocks, none of the dogs in any groups showed any signs of stress or distress. E-collars may be an appropriate tool in the hands of expert trainers in training behaviours that have important welfare impacts, such as running after cars or other animals. Future studies should investigate the levels of expertise needed to use e-collars effectively, the kinds of behavioural problems for which they are best suited, and the longer-term implications of their use."

This complex topic and study require multifaceted considerations.

Upon reading the paper — and coming from a holistic perspective — I venture into some:

1) First, to some extent, it seems the study demonstrates something well known already, that is, if a dog is punished with an electric shock, it may likely understand quite rapidly that what s/he is doing is unwanted. That would apply to other animals, too, including humans.

2) It also demonstrates that e-collar works fast and other training methods may take longer. Authors also declare this in the discussion: "Groups B and C might have learned more effectively if training had progressed slower with more conditioning sessions of the word “banana” with treats as well as more gradually shaped exposure to the increasing lure speed", and "one argument in favour of training with e-collars is that the results are much faster than with alternative non-aversive methods".

3) The study compared the e-collar with food reward-based training. There are many other approaches based on motivations, empathy, and various forms of communication with dogs that are not necessarily standardised and yet are impactful and non-harming. Anybody can try to reach out to the corresponding author (basically both authors) with some questions and engage them in the conversation. They may be open to evaluating other approaches for further studies, as they also declare in the discussion, "It is possible that our choice of food as reinforcer was inappropriate. We chose this method due to its prevalence within the non-aversive dog training community as a means to teach an emergency recall".

4) The study claims that no negative welfare impacts were observed. Well, negative welfare impacts are not necessarily observed right away, and they may take months to unfold. So, the absence of proof is not a proof of absence. As the authors declare in the discussion, "it is difficult to know the long-lasting impacts of these experiences" and "Our study did not investigate the longer-term impacts of the aversive training methods deployed.

5) Why and when to apply that strategy is another issue. Someone may argue there are situations so critical that such an e-collar may be the last resource to employ for the welfare of the dog to avoid that do the chaise. For example, there are places where if a dog chases, say, a duck, and the duck caretaker gets the dog, he has the "right" to kill the dog with a machete. There may be other critical situations where a dog starting to chase another animal may result in the death of the dog. Is this the typical scenario we face with our furry friends in our homes and around our urban and suburban environments? When is really necessary (if ever) to use e-collar?

An interesting note: in some places where free-ranging dogs are present, the companion dogs — those living as companion animals restricted to the family house — develop more chasing behaviours than the free-ranging dogs. (read this study)

6) For those who are very disappointed about this study, or, like me, concerned about it (not really about the study per se, but the consequences that it can have in the dog training environment, with some trainers feeling entitled to start/keep using e-collar) consider that - at least - it can be used as a baseline literature when somebody else will prove to achieve the same results of e-collar training with other modalities, so to further prove that e-collar may not be necessary also under those critical circumstances, or at least that some effective alternatives are possible.

Let's talk a moment about it

In the broader context of animal welfare, we have seen how certain practices that were once considered acceptable have later been found to cause harm after more comprehensive studies were conducted. It’s possible that e-collars, while seemingly effective in the short term, may carry hidden costs for the dog’s long-term mental and emotional health. Hence, the absence of immediate distress should not be taken as proof that e-collars are free from long-term consequences.

A major concern is how this study might influence the broader dog training community, particularly among trainers who may interpret the findings as justification for the widespread use of e-collars. The study demonstrates that e-collars are effective at rapidly stopping unwanted behaviours like chasing, but it’s important to emphasize that this does not mean they should be the first or preferred method of training.

For the majority of dog owners, e-collar use is likely unnecessary, and more humane, positive reinforcement-based methods should be prioritized. The risk is that some trainers or dog owners might see the rapid results from e-collars as a reason to skip more time-consuming but kinder and smarter training methods. This could lead to overuse, improper use, or even abuse of e-collars, where dogs are subjected to unnecessary pain or discomfort to achieve quick behavioural results.

In conclusion, the study highlights both the efficacy and the ethical dilemma of e-collars. While they can produce rapid results in stopping certain behaviours, the long-term impacts remain unclear, and the risk of misuse is significant. Given these concerns, the use of e-collars should be approached with tremendous caution, and some may want to employ it only in extreme cases where no other method will suffice.

I personally never used it and do not recommend it, not even in extreme situations. But I can understand if not all trainers agree with it.

In any case, future studies should focus on safer, non-aversive alternatives, allowing us to train dogs effectively without compromising their welfare and busting trust instead of obedience.

Marco Adda | The Founder

AEDC Anthrozoology Education Dogs Canines - Academy
Supporting professionals. Shaping the life of people and animals.

-

Stay tuned for more updates and exciting news.

Connect with us on Instagram if you haven't already.