How Well Do Dogs Trained with an E-Collar Fare?

Pain is universal. Both humans and non-human animals experience pain, which plays a vital role in survival, helping animals learn what to avoid. Pain is nature’s sharp, curved learning tool. But at what point does pain transition into suffering? Is it ever ethical to inflict suffering on another conscious creature? What is consciousness, and how does it impact understanding of animal welfare? These are the complex questions that many biologists and animal welfare advocates seek to answer as they strive to define and promote “welfare.” As cognitive scientists know, defining consciousness is tricky—it is not directly observable. While this article does not seek to redefine suffering or consciousness, it aims to evaluate practices surrounding animal welfare. As Dr. Dawkins (1998) defines it, the goal of welfare is “to work toward reducing suffering.” Thus, rather than delving into abstract ethical debates, this article will approach the issue symptomatically through observable indicators of good and poor welfare.

Training dogs is generally considered good practice, helping to create well-behaved companions and fostering long, happy lives between humans and dogs. However, certain training methods, such as those involving e-collars, can be ethically questionable and may verge on causing poor welfare for animals. In this article, welfare will again be explored symptomatically. More obvious signs of poor welfare include injury, disease, and death. However, as Thorpe (1965) suggested, restricting an animal’s natural behaviors is also a key indicator of poor welfare. This concept has been widely accepted, especially in farming communities and zoos, where "environmental enrichment" is encouraged to allow animals to express natural behaviors (Dawkins, 1998). It is curious, then, that there is slow acceptance of this principle when it comes to dogs—humans often expect dogs to walk on a leash without engaging in their natural instinctual behaviors, such as sniffing. With growing advocacy for allowing chickens to scratch or pigs to roll, why are dog lovers not advocating for dogs to smell? Furthermore, why is there a push to normalize shocking dogs for simply acting on these instincts? This article aims to explore these concerns by examining studies on the use of e-collars in dog training.

Currently, there are three types of e-collars available for purchase: remote-controlled e-collars, bark-activated e-collars, and boundary-collaring systems designed to keep dogs within a specific area. All three types work similarly: "The dog wears a collar with a box containing the battery and circuits to provide a pulse of current between two electrodes on the ventral surface of the dog’s neck. The intensity and duration of the stimulus can vary, and some collars, though not all, emit a warning beeping sound before the shock is delivered. The shock lasts between 1/1000 second and 30 seconds, with a potential difference up to several thousand volts" (Blackwell et al., 2012). While the use of these collars raises questions about animal welfare, this article will primarily focus on the remote-controlled e-collar, as it has raised significant concerns within the animal behavior and scientific training communities.

E-collar training is often associated with specialized work, such as training dogs for guarding, police, or military purposes. Due to the short training time required for these high-cost dogs, quick methods like remote e-collars are often employed (Schilder & van de Borg, 2004). While the use of e-collars in these contexts is commonly accepted, the ethical justification warrants closer examination. Schilder & van de Borg (2004) conducted a study on German Shepherds in military and police training. They found that stress signals were significantly greater among dogs that had been trained with e-collars compared to those that received no shocks—even outside of training sessions. The submission-like behaviors often attributed to e-collar training, such as lip-licking, tail lowering, and paw lifting, are actually signs of stress and fear, not submission (Beerda et al., 1998). These findings suggest that the dogs were not displaying submissive behaviors, but rather fear-based responses. The chronic manifestation of such stress indicators raises further concerns about the welfare implications of using e-collars.

Dr. Nicholas H. Dodman, a renowned veterinary behaviorist and emeritus professor at Tufts University, has long been an advocate for science-based, compassionate approaches to animal behavior. As a leading figure in promoting kinder training methods, Dr. Dodman has spoken out against the use of punitive training tools like e-collars: “I’ve been against them all my life. Inflicting pain is not the way to train a dog. You can train a dog with words, treats, and placement techniques—there are many other ways” (Dodman, 2024). In discussing welfare, Dr. Dodman emphasizes the importance of meeting biological needs and ensuring animals are free from fear: “Welfare is doing well... being able to fulfill biological needs and behaviors... and freedom from fear” (Dodman, 2024). When asked about the use of shock collars, Dr. Dodman unequivocally aligned his response with the research, stating, “I believe they negatively affect welfare. Punishment only teaches avoidance, not learning” (Dodman, 2024).

Dr. Dodman also pointed out that e-collars could cause lesions on the dog’s neck, exacerbate behavioral problems, and damage the human-animal bond: “Pain can cause long-term negative effects on welfare, increase fear, and deteriorate the relationship between dog and owner. Who would want a dog that is frightened of them?” (Dodman, 2024). Furthermore, he noted that e-collars have already been banned in several countries, including the UK, which have recognized the harm they cause. To date, 10 countries have banned e-collars, with more introducing bills to prohibit their sale and use due to concerns over dog welfare (Masson et al., 2018).

Given the growing body of evidence highlighting the detrimental effects of e-collars on dogs' welfare, the continued use of this training method raises ethical questions. Is it justified simply because it is quick and easy? If so, can this justification truly outweigh the long-term harm it causes, including increased behavioral problems and deteriorating relationships between dogs and their owners? As Dr. Dodman aptly stated, “What you’re doing is making the dog realize that you have the power to hurt them—and that’s not the foundation for a loving relationship.” It may be time to reconsider our approach to dog training and prioritize methods that foster trust, understanding, and a healthy, loving bond with our canine companions.

References

Beerda, B., Schilder, M. B. H., van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M., de Vries, H. W., & Mol, J. A. (1998). Behavioural, saliva cortisol, and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58(3), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00145-7

Blackwell, E. J., Bolster, C., Richards, G., Loftus, B. A., & Casey, R. A. (2012). The use of electronic collars for training domestic dogs: estimated prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner perceived success as compared to other training methods. BMC Veterinary Research, 8(1), 93–93. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-93

Dawkins, M. S. (1998). Evolution and Animal Welfare. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 73(3), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1086/420307

Dodman, N. “Personal communication.” October 27, 2024.

Masson, S., Nigron, I., & Gaultier, E. (2018). Questionnaire survey on the use of different e-collar types in France in everyday life with a view to providing recommendations for possible future regulations. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 26, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.004

Schilder, M. B. H., & van der Borg, J. A. M. (2004). Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.10.004