Why use electric shock collars? A plea for enlightenment.

The justifications and popularity.

Do they work?

The humane introduction/acclimation.

The BIG question – “Why?”

Introduction

I used to have a really great “best friend”. She was a wonderful dog – would do anything for me and vice versa – totally devoted, she responded to any cue at the highest level of obedience training (which we practice just for fun). We had such great times together, walking, running, training, swimming, playing, cuddling, learning, laughing. I started to give her electric shocks by an e-collar - just so I could be sure she would always do exactly what I wanted immediately with sharpened response time – whatever was in my mind – and just look “impressive”, like those dogs on so many YouTube demonstrations.

Although she is a resilient dog, rebounds quickly and, like all dogs, is very forgiving, I found the limits – she still responds to my cues, but she shows me with a look in her eyes that she is not my best friend anymore. Only now do I realise my folly in believing the hype and adopting the electric shock collar in my canine teaching toolkit.

OK, put away the tissues – that is not a true story – but it could be. Some readers may be thinking “Oh boy, what a wimp, on about that jeopardizing the human-canine bond again!” - but I see the same effect so often with dog guardians lured into thinking that they just need greater enforcement (coercion) - a bigger stick - to get their dog to do what they want, rather than learn and have the patience for thoughtful, positive training methods and without a thought for the nature of their canine companion.

No – this is not an article about “purely force-free” nor “strictly positive only” dog training, which the “balanced fraternity” like to exaggerate, decry and even ridicule (which does not advance the canine training knowledge base, nor place their punishment-based training concepts in a positive light). The point of this article is partly to question exactly how electric shock collars on dogs add value to the training regime, but also to point out that the arguments presented as to how “the remote collar – in the opinion of some of the best dog trainers in the world – is the best dog training tool that’s ever been devised” and “this is modern dog training…..this is technology…this is 2025” [1] are without substance, are irresponsibly thrown around as if the panacea for all canine training challenges, without reference to dog breed, temperament, nor the training/behaviour goal and are really classic examples of “gaslighting”, perpetuating the myth that “tools train the dog”[2].

As in earlier articles on this website, the discussion and views expressed are aimed at companionship dog management and training (commonly referred to as “pet dog training”) as well as training for the dog sports of Obedience, Agility, Hoops, Frisbee, Dock Diving, Gun Dog Retrieving, etc., rather than military and police dog training of high drive dogs (and the very rare circumstance of training a deaf dog[3]). However, to offer as clear a position as possible, the general terms of reference as to the ethics and benefits of positive reinforcement training and teaching dogs to think and respond remains intact across the board^[4].

In terms of the details of what the special purpose police/military dogs are required to learn to overcome/combat and the actions they need to perform in their jobs, it is recognised that this is a specialist area but (hopefully) remains part of the evolution of the whole dog training regime and, it does appear, that certain police dog trainers appreciate that training has moved on from the old methods of “jerk and hurt” of the pre-2000 era - and also that electric shock collars are frequently abused[5]. There is a growing understanding that a modern-day military/police dog trained with positive reinforcement techniques is more likely to respond in the positive and cooperative manner desired^[6] and “think for itself” when confronted with an unrehearsed situation^[7], a field rich in further research opportunities^[8].

So – keeping an open mind about training practices is essential. This does not mean that the use of certain techniques or tools (otherwise regarded as aversive) in these “man-work and defense” disciplines is therefore universally acceptable in any circumstances. That is part of the misconception we are challenged with. There are special requirements in these military/police fields of dog training which the average dog trainer just does not get exposed to and we need to be open to placing those requirements in a special category, which is not to say that the e-collar is justified and the best way to train in that arena.

An excuse for e-collars and a plea for enlightenment

To offer an “excuse” behind the logic of harsh treatment of dogs using prong collars, slip leads (and similar “dominant dog” collars) and e-collars - it is noted that certain proponents of these tools gained a major part of their dog handling experience before the turn of the century (and, of course, continuing from that time) when coercive training protocols were the norm, particularly with the dogs imported from Europe in the 1990’s era for police/military work. Such dogs are variously described as extremely tough, high drive dogs, through to “absolute beasts” (paraphrasing comments such as “little or no training or socialisation” and “if you could get them home without getting bitten you were lucky”[9]). Now – offering that excuse of “old learning” is being generous, mainly because this author has witnessed it so many times. Basically, either to many such trainers the idea of force and pack leadership really appeals to their sense of self-worth, or, despite their best intentions and motivations, they simply have not caught up with the evolution and advancements in canine training and psychology. And that is somewhat understandable – it is hard to overturn what one learned first, what has been practiced for years because “that is the way we learned and it always worked” - what one still holds on to as being of key relevance.

The “plea for enlightenment” here is simply that these trainers “get with the program” and acknowledge these facts when they promote such tools to the general public. There needs to be a distinction between the past “taming the beast for man-work” and proven modern positive techniques we are now all aware of, for police training the “new breed of dog”, for “sport dog” (man-work/bite-work) training and for pet manners and general obedience, as well as behaviour change dog training.   

Stance on electric shock collars

The dog training world is being inundated with social media and print justifications of using electric shock collars in dog training, from basic to sophisticated levels of obedience, across especially hunting dog and protection sports but, unfortunately, overflowing into the arena of general pet dog training. Big tobacco is getting knocked off its perch of promoting a multi-million-dollar industry through subterfuge and misinformation, promulgated by the holy dollar and pundits who, frankly and blatantly, put themselves forward as knowledgeable and sophisticated professional dog trainers trying to convince the dog training fraternity at large that electric shock collars are the best thing since sliced bread. The fundamental error here is convincing would-be dog trainers that the e-collar is the answer to all dog training regimes, the “go-to” tool to create an obedient dog. The vocal advocates of e-collar training, these pundits, really should know better and take their obligations to the general dog training public – and to the canine population - more seriously. Stop drinking the cool-aid. It’s high time – in fact overdue – that, in this age of abundant fake news, we see if we can call this nonsense out for what it is and “expert canine trainers” start acting responsibly[10].

In a nutshell – and to continue in the blunt vein of deliberate “shake-up” - the stupidity of the proliferation of the electric shock collar by frustrated, impatient, apparently time-poor (and often incompetent) “dog trainers”, who seem unable to appreciate the last 25 years advancement in dog training methodologies, the distinction between the type of dog (character and drive) and the job role it is asked to perform (from military battleground tactics to family pet) continues today and perpetuates the outmoded punishment style of coercive dog training. Again, it is not suggested that a dog is mollycoddled, that it leads a totally stress-free life, nor that it is never shown right from wrong, but refer to the companion Articles on this website listed at Footnote 22 to fully appreciate all this.

Now, some may argue that the electric shock delivery is in fact used for negative reinforcement (rather than positive punishment) but the action is still part of coercive training regimes, applying the shock (warning/pain/ fear) then removing it once the dog responds as required[11]. However, this type of “escape-avoidance training” must first have taught a dog exactly how to escape whatever correction (what becomes the reinforcer once removed) can actually be terminated, so that the dog has active control of consequences. Otherwise, the dog will be stressed and confused by negative reinforcement (the correction part as it is applied) and may engage in undesirable ways to try to “turn it off”- such as biting the handler – so it is critical that the desired behaviour is first taught through positive reinforcement[12] - we will come back to this point.

Maybe the explanation for the pear-shaped coercive ideology in dog training is simply that, otherwise excellent dog trainers (who actually know better) promote these tools because they think their public (i.e. paying customers) demand the push-button quick fix, zero effort, 100% guaranteed (which nothing is!) solution. That is, these “professional trainers” play to their audience/clientele and subjugate their conscience (and – giving them the benefit of the doubt – what they know to be better solutions) for money. A number actually do paid promotions for shock collar brands or manufacture and/or push their own branded varieties of slip collars, prong collars and e-collars. What does that tell you?

Is this a cynical and harsh assessment of promoters selling a universal fix to canine guardians? Yes. But is it totally unwarranted?

Before digging this hole any deeper, let me put down the spade for a moment and make some elements of this stance on the shock collar debate clear.

1.     Shock collars should not be banned[13] – they just should not be sold and used by a gullible public of dog owners/trainers who are unable to distinguish between teaching standard canine obedience (“manners”) and behavior modification versus extreme military/police action requirements – which may or may not require/justify the e-collar in certain special circumstances. Thankfully, this latter cohort of canine training is also benefitting from the advancements in canine ethology understanding and is undergoing positive change in the modern era of canine training protocols.

2.     Electric shock collars – along with prong collars, Halti harnesses (both the front attach no-pull and nose/face harnesses), slip leads, choke-chain collars and “throw chains” – are part of the aversive basis of what is referred to as coercive training[14], involving force and/or punishment, or what Scott and Fuller[15] in their treatise sixty years ago had already described as inhibitory training and often referred to as “old school pressure escape/avoidance training” – all part of the “science of animal psychology zeitgeist”^[16].

3.     Electric shock collars are particularly open to abuse (even more so than the other tools listed) by frustrated handlers trying to control partly trained dogs, simply because of the ability and (apparently) the temptation to rachet-up the setting to deliver a more powerful shock with the facility of the “push button training”. This is actively encouraged by proponents who are quick to list as a key benefit that the control has a “boost” button as well as a quick turn amplifier control, so the handler can automatically hit the dog with a bigger shock if they feel the distraction level, their own frustration level, or their desire to apply a higher level of “correction”, warrants it. Some brands of electric collars available today automatically rachet up the “shock”, “jab” or “hammer” until the control button is released – presumably (shortly) after the dog responds as required (?).

4.     At the extreme, aversive punishment of any kind communicates “that’s not what I commanded”, “stop what you are doing” and at the worst it says “freeze – stop everything”[17], but does not communicate what the dog should do instead – what is the preferred/replacement behaviour (which requires positive reinforcement[18]). And - Yes – I get it – the proponents of negative reinforcement will say “Oh no, that’s not what we use it for”. Yep – I believe you – but a little self-analysis and honesty wouldn’t go astray.

5.      There is a lot of research which can be presented as the backbone of findings on the use of electric shock collars^[19].  As a summary, the combined outcome of that work is as follows (a fuller explanation appears in the companion Article on this website Should certain dog training devices be banned?).

As a general statement, adversarial techniques have negative consequences that those promoting these techniques either dismiss or ignore (Overall, 2007 and 2018). The oft touted “improved behaviour” is simply immobility/learned helplessness and proponents don’t analyse the long-term impacts of using electric shock as a training mechanism. Other observations include misdirected aggressive response; physiological and behavioural changes seen in dogs subjected to shock collars; increased risk of resulting aggression. Furthermore, dogs may discriminate when they can or cannot display the “undesirable behavior” without receiving a shock. This is because positive punishments aim to suppress a certain behavior, while alternative, non-aversive techniques can alter undesired behavior and the underlying emotional states, which can likely lead to long-term behavioral improvements (Masson, et al, 2018; Todd, 2018)). Admittedly, when e-collars are used for negative reinforcement, they might reinforce alternative behaviours, however this can readily be achieved through non-aversive techniques – with a likely more lasting (and better welfare) outcome. At the extreme (remembering there are no natural barriers to the level of shock delivered – it is down to the predilection of the handler) reactions to shock collar application has been evidenced by lowered body posture, high pitched yelps, barks and squeals, avoidance, redirection, aggression, tongue flicking – all suggesting fear and/or pain (Schilder and van der Borg, 2004). Now, although (some may argue) the reactions were momentary – a fraction of a second - the issue is how long the memory and response impact lasts – not how long the shock lasts[20].

6.     The “dominant dog” argument relates back to the alpha wolf concept, debunked 25 years ago by the researcher who coined the phrase (Footnote 67) and has been reviewed and countered so very many times. As explained over 20 years ago by Coppinger and Coppinger in 2001, “….A trainer who pretends to be the alpha leader ……is intimidating the dog ….but the message is not what the trainer thinks - …Teaching and learning are seldom facilitated by intimidation……The fact that so many believe the wolf-pack homology, and use it in training a dog is really a testament to how little is understood about canine behavioural development”[21].

7.     In summary, the use of an electric shock/remote collar on a dog is a redundancy to sensible and ethical training (allowing the caveat regarding extreme police/military training with specific high drive canines already mentioned). And – again – the high profile “public figure” dog training expert and “influencer” needs to understand - and take responsibility for - what they are perpetuating – viz. the ubiquitous value and quick fix outcomes of the application of electric collars in canine training. This is further explained and expanded on below.

Before we go on, could this author have a change of heart and mind regarding the use of electric shock collars on dogs? Keeping an open mind and being able to revisit a belief or firmly held position is not easy and, in this case (I will admit) it seems unlikely. But – if presented with an avalanche of factual evidence (not a Gish Gallop set of flimsy data!) of dog response, behaviour, welfare and not allowing for the lazy trainer quick fix goal, I am willing to keep the door ajar. And no – it’s not about “lacking the courage of my convictions", it’s about being an open-minded educator and researcher, always asking “what if I’m wrong” – and - “what can I learn?” If the reader is saying to themselves “you are wrong and you have a lot to learn!” Oops – right there is a closed mind that believes it knows it all.

To fully appreciate this author’s stance on positive reinforcement dog training versus the use of aversives, the reader is referred to companion Articles on this website[22].

Arguments proponents put forward for electric shock collars

1.    Misleading descriptors

Tools such as electric shock collars are euphemistically called “training tools” – they would be better labelled as “punishment tools” or at least “negative reinforcement tools” if only used at “tap on the shoulder” levels (a common phraseology/excuse used by e-collar advocates ignoring the ability and tendency to rachet up the shock)[23].

Electric collars are also often referred to as “stim collars” – an abbreviation for “stimulation” (i.e., “I am not shocking my dog, I am stimulating it to obey me”. Yeah, I believe that – makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?). We are told it is just used on vibrate (low-end) mode for “stimulation”. A mere tickle or “buzz”, similar to a TENS[24] machine on a human (somehow not quite believable) to get the dog’s attention, and are touted by some as introduced “humanely through low level conditioning” (hard to believe the proponents of these views can keep a straight face as they keep turning up the shock level to get a visible reaction out of their dog). But humane and just a tickle? Really? So how come the dial goes up to 100-120+, which would make a human flex uncontrollably and wet their pants, and some popular brands are marketed as “The Educator” and “The Boss”, boasting “…. most humane and effective system for dog training …gives a very smooth transition of Electronic 'Stim' …. adjustable 'Instant Boost' Level can be pre-set to give enough of a jump in 'stim' if needed?[25] Just in case the dog doesn’t come when called and the trainer needs a means of venting their frustration, perhaps? There is a saying that “the only one who is reinforced by positive punishment is the frustrated, impatient trainer”.

2.    Canine freedom – “dogs should be dogs”

“Off-leash freedom” is a common justification for electric shock collar usage. That is, enable your dog to roam free on the range or in the bush – giving it total agency to do whatever it wants - and still be able to call it back using the electric shock – essentially the “recall” triggered by the electric shock. There are significant errors in this argument – which are so fundamental it is surprising that they need to be explained – but these “recall”, “freedom” and “agency” arguments are presented time and again, so apparently an explanation is warranted.

a.     Recall: A dog’s hearing allows them to respond to a call or whistle (the higher pitch, the greater the range) up to about one mile (1.6km) on average, obviously varying with dog breed and also weather conditions (wind and air moisture)[26]. Dogs have shown they can detect thunder at a range exceeding 50 miles (80km)[27]. “Professional” e-collars are marketed as having a range of about half a mile (less than one km – although some brands advertise 1+km)[28]. So – if the recall is properly trained, then the e-collar in most circumstances comes in a very poor second to a trained response to a call or whistle (or a gesture if the dog is in sight). Think of the sheep dogs (typically Border Collies, Kelpies, Australian Shepherds, in Europe, German Shepherds and in the UK, Shelties -the Shetlands - and Corgis - Wales) which respond perfectly to a wide variety of whistles, emitted by the shepherd at large distances, signaling left, right, behind, away, fast, slow, go around, down, stand still, creep forward, come to me, etc. Do that with an e-collar, and if you could, why, when the whistle has worked for decades and is still used by modern farmers and stock herders?

b.     Predation: If the dog is roaming free and starts chasing a rabbit (or whatever prey animal runs from it) then the argument is presented that the e-collar shock guarantees it will stop the chase, not perform the undesirable catch-and-kill, or run across a busy road in the pursuit. However, research to date does not back-up this conclusion[29] and does not relate well to what happens in “real life”. Further, as noted in another Article on this website (“Should certain dog training devices be banned?”) when a dog off-leash has the predatory drive, there is evidence to indicate that even a high-level pulse on an e-collar will not divert the dog from its target in this situation^[30]. Nor will the offer of a high-value treat, of course, in that moment – when the dog is also deaf to cues from the guardian^[31]. The predatory instinct under extreme provocation is incredibly strong – a primal drive. As noted in the Article on this website referenced above, farmers and hunters can relate stories of their pet/stock/cattle/hunting dogs chasing prey (like rabbits, deer, kangaroos or wild boar) through several barbed-wire fences, get severely damaged (by rocks tearing the dog’s pads, by brambles, the wire or the boar – tusks tearing the dog - or kangaroo – hind feet shredding the dog - they catch) but the dogs don’t stop the chase, catch and kill sequence, to the point where some might make it home at the end of the day, but don’t survive the damage, but were not for one second deterred from the predatory drive. But some think a little stim on the e-collar will intervene in that sequence?

Dogs with a history of off-leash behavior problems have been found in relevant research in 2020^[32] targeting this issue to show no difference in the pro­portion of disobeyed cues between dogs trained with electronic shock collars by manufacturer-nominated trainers com­pared with reward-based training. However, dogs trained with reward-based methods in this study had a shorter delay before respond­ing than the group trained with electronic shock collars. Conversely, stretching the “drive interruption” to the police/bite-work arena (with obvious parallels in “high drive excitement”) a 2012 study[33] had concluded that (quote) “it was found that the electronic training collar had higher learning effect and induced less stress to cease the unwanted behaviour in comparison to the other training methods (viz: prong collar and a “quitting signal” – the quitting signal is a conditioned signal which evokes feeling of frustration in dogs since it has a meaning of withdrawal of the reward) in a situation with high motivation”. It is important to note that some of the differences in observations might be regarded as slight and/or relating to the history of training methodology - and that the experience and efficacy of the dog handler was key. But nonetheless, that was the conclusion.

So where does that all leave the predation/attack drive interrupter argument? Firstly, one must take care in picking and choosing a particular “scientific study” to prove their point of view – there is always another study, qualifying parameters and another argument. Secondly, noting that this latter referenced 2012 study was on highly trained police Belgium Malinois with very competent, experienced handlers/trainers, as these latter researchers themselves concluded (quote) “the debates over training methods (specifically referring to the collar type and the “out/stop/cease and desist” command) should include not only the specific training aids but also their significance for animal welfare prospect should be covered…… (and that) …… further studies should be performed to investigate whether the same findings could be achieved with the dogs of other breeds”. To which one might reasonably add a reference to the level and methods of canine training and handler capability and a note that the e-collar use is not allowed in the bite-sport/man-work competition trials, so in those circumstances the dog must respond to the verbal command or gesture.

In summary, the argument of “stopping the predatory chase (or the orchestrated man attack) and return to the guardian because of e-collar application” is highly complex and at the very least requires specialized intensive training (in the man work example) and in the predatory drive (the sense–chase-catch-kill prey sequence) is arguably somewhat of a myth. There is a way to interrupt the prey chase predatory sequence, covered in the companion article on this website “Managing reactive and predatory dog behaviour”, but, of course, that takes management, planning, patience, persistence and guardian awareness, not the false hope of a push button instant fix “after the horse has bolted”.

c.      Agency: A third issue sometimes raised is the argument of “canine agency”. This argument slides right past the whole issue that dogs are not generally “free as a bird”. Dogs are a domesticated (arguably “manufactured” through breeding) species which by and large form companionship and work relationships with human guardians and handlers[34]. This should be obvious by now (after some 10,000+ years of selective breeding) but seems to be overlooked by the phrase “just let the dog be a dog”. Oops – it is always a dog, just get it straight what is meant by that in the evolutionary and developmental context of the human relationship and responsible canine guardianship[35].

3.    Safety

The safety factor is commonly quoted as electric collar justification on five main fronts, viz., snake proofing, wildlife protection, stock chasing, avoiding being hit on the road by a car and invisible (buried/radio) electronic fencing[36].

a.     Snake proofing. There is little evidence that training by electric shock will actually make a dog avoid a snake, partly because the dog has to see or hear the snake (it won’t necessarily hiss or rattle before the strike). For Australia, the deadly snakes are completely silent – farm animals are not infrequently bitten (more commonly than farm dogs, if only because there are a lot more of them) – no rattle and not even a warning hiss before the strike[37]. Ask a farmer or bush walker bitten by a snake – given their brain power and understanding of the abundance and dangers of deadly snakes, how is it that they didn’t avoid the bite? They probably won’t tell you it was because they never completed their electric shock collar training or they forgot to put it on that day.

b.     Saving protected wildlife. Dogs are banned from National Parks in Australia (the wildlife habitat – mammals, reptiles and birds are all in the protected species category) and should not be roaming free where wildlife could be endangered. So, it comes down to responsible canine management rather than push-button punitive attempts by dog guardians who break the law, care nothing for wildlife and do not, in fact, guard or manage their dogs ethically.

c.      Stock chasing. A responsible owner will not have their dog roaming free around stock – unless, of course, it is a guardian shepherd dog or a trained working cattle or sheep dog, in which case it is unlikely to kill livestock because it has both natural and highly trained reactions to stock and it will be under supervision (unless it is a “free-ranging” guardian). If a dog prone to stock predation does escape containment and chases stock, then it will be unlikely to be wearing an active electric collar, the guardian will most likely not be aware the dog has escaped and hence not on the scene and, as above, once the chase is initiated, prey drive sets in and there is no stopping the dog, electric collar or not.

d.     Hit by a car. Again, this is a fictitious nonsense – what idiotic, irresponsible (yes – there are other descriptors!) guardian has a dog off-leash running beside a busy road and, if the dog has escaped captivity, then the same arguments as above for stock chasing apply – no e-collar and no guardian knowledge or presence on the scene to prevent the catastrophe and no certainty that, with or without an e-collar on the dog, it will decide that going on the road is dangerous/to be avoided.

e.     Invisible fencing. Although not the “training focus” of this article, we should at least mention the invisible fencing type of electric collar which delivers a warning buzz or shock to the dog as it approaches the barrier defined by an electric current/radio transmitter. A few rather obvious problems with this. Firstly, this “fence” will not prevent an unwanted visitor (stray dog or predator, such as a wolf of fox – if in the area) from entering the property and attacking the resident dog or livestock. Secondly, if the predation instinct takes control, then the dog can be driven to burst right past the “barrier” with speed and intent – the shock is borne and burst through. We see this commonly with livestock contained by electric fencing. If the impulse to pass the barrier is high enough – such as a calf returning to its mother, or a bull deciding he should be on the other side of the fence - then even an electric shock, which would deter a human from jumping through the fence, will not change the end result. Thirdly, this type of shock collar can cause aberrant canine reactions (related to seemingly random shocks as the dog wanders the property inadvertently too close to the unidentifiable perimeter) such as constant circling or other displacement behaviours[38].

For each of these justifications, I would suggest that the canine guardian’s actions require a rethink and perhaps the guardians themselves require sanctioning and punitive action, rather than the tool or the dogs[39].

4.    Speed and effectiveness of training

The argument often presented in favour of using a shock collar on a dog is that it speeds up learning in the training. Imagine going to see a movie billed as “Science Fiction” in which children and developing young adults are wired up to an electric current which delivers all the adult learning, actions and behaviours they will need to “fit in” to the Orwellian utopian society, so they no longer need to attend kindergarten through university for their education. Of course, it is eventually discovered that these subjects miss out on all the normal problem solving and communication skills and time to develop their true natures and personalities – compassion, empathy and decision making in new and unusual predicaments are particularly lacking. My guess is that – if you stayed to watch the obvious story ending unfold – you may think to reclassify this as a Horror movie rather than a Sci-Fi movie.

Now, am I really suggesting that training a dog with an electric shock collar rather than voice, gestures, patience, persistence and positive reinforcement, denies them their proper brain and character development and engenders seemingly malicious development? Certainly not – that would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it – sort of a Hound of The Baskervilles suspense-horror-science-fiction story? Who would even think of that (well – apart from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, writer and physician)? Just silly! Well? Isn’t it? Just return to the understanding that a dog needs to comprehend the directions, the cues, delivered by the trainer through positive reinforcement techniques before any form of aversive direction or correction is applied – if indeed that is necessary/justified – then why add in the e-collar (the BIG question discussed below)?

Why are electric shock collars popular?

So, if there is truth in these arguments against the use of e-collars on dogs, how come electric shock collars are so popular in dog training today? Surely the popularity proves they are great stuff? Surely the famous dog trainer promoters, those basing entire dog training systems on electric collars (such as the ^TMNePoPo[40]) and millions of purchasers can’t be wrong?

To answer this, we need to address at least the following issues:

1.     Big business. The manufacture and sales of e-collars run to the millions, with many tens of millions of these collars in use around the world, so the marketing and sponsored arguments in favour of shock-collars are not going away. And no, this does not prove that therefore shock collars must be great for dogs because so many are sold, any more than we can convince ourselves that smoking tobacco must be good for you because so many do it globally and it is a multi-million-dollar business, although, for a while back there it was regarded as pretty tough and cool. Hmmmm?

2.     Getting paid to promote electric shock collars. A very worrying trend is appearing with generally reputable and globally renowned dog trainers (some of whom I otherwise greatly admire) promoting the use of electric collars. There is even a sense that to be a really top-level sophisticated dog trainer one needs to use an electric shock collar on their dog – if only to be up there with the best. There is no need to name names (the sales pitches will hit you in the face if you have a dog-trainer learning-bug and read dog training books, follow social media and YouTube at all) however, I will note that the originators of NePoPo^TM, not surprisingly, own and market their own manufactured e-collars[41]. These so clearly relate to business interests and flogging a product – sorry folks – make up your own mind on the veracity and integrity of these e-collar claims – are they really non-biased opinions based on experience, data and research? Maybe. But I do ask – just think of any sales person who tells you that you cannot live the life you aspire to without a particular product and that the one they promote is the best on the market (so much better than that cheap c#@p!). Makes the hair on the back of your neck prickle, doesn’t it?

3.     The push-button age. We all love our TV remotes and mobile phone Apps – can’t we have the same command and control over our dogs as these things deliver, while we sit on our butts and do “effortless training”? Simple answer – NO! – because dogs are sentient beings with feelings and emotions (may as well wire-up grandma and the kids!). A current YouTube proponent of training promotes the electric shock as the “go to” tool for dog obedience[42]. This proponent continuously ramps up the shock level until his GS responds to the recall (only about 25-50 metres away – a whistle or “Fido – Come” would have worked fine). The dog does come towards him on the various demonstrations – but never to what I would class as a good or classic recall – never to the front sit or the heel sit and never making handler/guardian eye contact. So again, I ask – “Why?” Oh wait – it’s so cool to just hit the little button? This “dog trainer” repeats the same fiction in a further YouTube video[43] and puts forward many reasons why e-collar training is so essential – including; Consistency; Avoids the pressure of Life; Safety; Enhanced communication based on 100 levels of electric shock; Reactivity interruption training; Versatility – barking at windows/counter surfing/obedience; Dog confidence – dogs want to know what to do; Quality of life; etc. Really? Some of these points are broadly valid concepts and training opportunities - but none require delivering an electric shock to the dog’s neck, which is not only counter-intuitive but decidedly and demonstrably counter-productive. In fact, all of these elements can be taught with better canine and human welfare using quite standard, non-flashy, non-electronic, non-push button, positive reinforcement and sensible management techniques. Dogs can learn to respond to many, many verbal and body language cues – so why use the one-stop-hit-the-shock-button method? Regular humane training is too much effort and not YouTube click-bait sexy enough?

4.     The counter-argument. A very thorough dissection and discussion of electric shock collars, in terms of why they are not as bad as many believe, is mounted by Lindsay[44], considering information and analyses up to publication in 2005. The conclusion drawn is that electronic training aids are “generally reliable, effective and humane” and are not the “draconian punishment devices causing significant pain and distress to dogs”, the view put by “many critics who are strikingly ignorant regarding the use and effect of such tools”[45]. Criticism of those choosing to condemn electronic shock devices for dogs is quite severe, suggesting lack of intellectual integrity and scientific restraint, basing their position on personal prejudice and hearsay[46]. This is more than a little “over the top” assumptive criticism. However, this is not to conclude that Lindsay is pro-punishment and anti-reinforcement[47], so haters of e-collars should not be too quick to label all that author’s writings as the logic of a troglodyte, but rather consider how he reconciled his positive views on reward training with e-collar use and why he reached the conclusion he did, which, I would suggest, is “off-track”, ignores canine breeds, temperaments and personalities, the special circumstances of certain training needs for niche canine job roles, the failings of human nature in frustrating dog training predicaments and, in any case, belongs in the outdated modes of compulsive avoidance training.

Do they work?

Of course they work – to a degree in limited circumstances - dogs aren’t stupid! Just as the coercive training regimes of past eras worked on dogs from the military to the movie dog heroes and pet dog training – until someone finally figured out there was a better way with the “reward-based revolution” – which, incidentally, has been waiting to be appreciated since the days of Watson (1878-1958), Thorndike (1874-1949) and Skinner (1904-1990) and was demonstrated so well by the Brelands (training animals in the 1940-1950’s era).

This is not to say that arguments in favour of electric shock collars won’t continue to be mounted, for example, for gundog training (although this author had thought that the punishment regime argument in gundog education was debunked in the mid nineteenth century[48]) wherein the distance to the (often out-of-sight) working dog apparently justifies the use. However, think of the sheep and cattle dogs which commonly work out of sight (and electric/radio pulse range) but still follow their training and instincts to accomplish the goals. If a handler was to use the electric shock on one of these stock herding dogs, they would not only loose the trust, instinctive decision-making capacity, reliability and companionship of the dog, but probably the wayward cow and calf or 2,000 sheep as well.

Before we get into too much “deep yoghurt” here, let’s revert and agree that the main focus of the articles on this website is on “pet dog training”. Nothing belittling in that acknowledgement, as the concepts and techniques discussed/debated do apply to the whole gamut of family pet, guardian and protector, Obedience, Agility, Gun Dog Retrieving, etc., training, right through to the trialing/competition levels.

That being stated, we note that the largest cohort of electric shock collar training is the “bite work/man-work/sport dog” group who are relating to mock or genuine military/police type applications, especially working with such breeds as Malinois and German Shepherds. The electric shock collar use seems to fit in with the toughness and hard training indulging all too often in unnecessary over-correction – so maybe they know some secret the rest of us don’t.  But these proponents don’t strike me as the enlightened military/police personnel who understand that their life depends on their dog in unrehearsed situations and who increasingly acknowledge the value of positive reinforcement training techniques[49].

Again, one has to question the training aims and logic, given our contention and strong belief that the tools do not train the dog, the handler does. In the end, it really comes down to personal beliefs and adherence to ethical, humane training methodologies and awareness of the evolution of dog training towards a positive reinforcement base. And – No - don’t try to write this off as “force-free cohort group-speak”, that is not what is being suggested and not at all what this is. How competently the dog trainer achieves the training goal, with the canine-human rapport intact and the dog able to act with choice, in control of consequences, in the fashion desired by the human companion, depends on the decisions the trainer makes as to their preferred training protocols.

Common e-collar problems/drawbacks

Electric shock collars, just like any device of this nature, suffer from many pitfalls and failings. This is not really surprising for an electronic/radio signal, battery operated push-button devise. Here are some of the main issues.

1.     Fit. The biggest issue mentioned time and again by advocates[50] is that the collar is not fitted properly and making skin/nerve contact through the fir/muscle/fat/ cartilage of the dog’s neck, so the handler doesn’t get the response hoped for – so the inclination is to BOOST! Some brands of collars recently to market recognise this failing and attempt to overcome it with an “electrical contact” verifying indicator light, or the ability to add “wings” to distribute and penetrate/amplify the shock more effectively (that is really off-planet scary stuff!).

2.     Batteries. Batteries run flat and fail – the torch goes dim just when you hear a strange noise in the yard. Of course, one can ensure the batteries are charged – but who hasn’t had their mobile phone run low on power?

3.     Range. Described above – under “normal” circumstances the audible (voice/whistle) and hand gesture cues travel of the order of twice as far as the electric/radio pulse.

4.     Water. Most e-collars are advertised as “waterproof”, which we take it to mean that the mechanism is safe from corrosion by exposure to water, but are devoid of explanations as to the conduct of the shock through the water medium or enhanced level of shock because of the fur and skin being wet. Every school student will tell you that water conducts electricity, so if it’s raining or the dog jumps in a river – this is fine? It is recommended that after becoming wet, the collar is removed and the fur dried to prevent rash or abrasion – again unclear if this is due to enhanced conductivity, so should the level be turned down under wet conditions? Many examples of severe e-collar malfunction when wet can be readily found on the internet.

5.     Different brands/makes of electric shock collars deliver very different sensations to the dog – not just level of effectiveness or reliability of “shock”. Some deliver a shock which will cause a muscle spasm whilst others deliver something of a “stimulation” or repeated “tapping”. The anomaly here – and indeed danger – is that the average dog guardian has no idea what the brand they purchase and use is most suited for – and will align with their hoped-for outcome - in these terms. An overview of these issues is given in the video “The Shocking Truth About E-Collar Training”[51] (actually pro-electric collar usage – “Shocking” it may be, but is it “The Truth”?).

6.     Empirical studies and research (laboratory and field based) since the last century have drawn attention to the many drawbacks and collateral damage of delivering electric shocks to animals to promote or curtail a behaviour. Perhaps the scene was set at the time of Pavlov (1849-1936) trying to comprehend animals based purely on conditioned behavioral theory (the “stimulus-reinforcer” pairing or associative learning and uncontrolled spontaneous reactions) followed by the famous Skinner (1904-1990) experiments on rats (behaviours conditioned by the sequence stimulus – response - consequence) seemingly validating the myth that animals can’t think, they merely respond to stimuli and behave like programmed robots. This reasoning was walked forward to canine training, conveniently sidestepping the works of Griffin (1915-2003) on cognitive ethology – which considers animal nature, communication, umwelt and decision making[52]. In a nutshell, Griffin considered animal cerebral dynamics in terms of mental experiences, reasoning, consciousness and continuity of awareness – even “planning ahead”. These elements all sheet home to the “ethical significance” of animal consciousness, the essence of the issue relevant to this discussion being “inflicting needless pain or suffering” on an animal - the question becomes one of values: for what ends may we cause harm? Griffin believed that animals can, and do, make decisions about their actions and are not as “ritualistic or reflexive” as perhaps the Behaviorists would contend.

Added to this mix of science and psychology was the misconception that behaviourists tend to have that all animals learn in the same way – assuming that what works for dolphins and rats will work for every breed of dog (compare Coppinger and Coppinger at p. 34: Footnote 21). The broad use of pain, anxiety or electric shocks on dogs was probably not core to the thesis, nor aims, of these Pavlovian and Skinnerian experimenters – but continues to show up now as collateral damage as trainers seek to justify the use of electric shock collars. A significant complexity in this area of classical-operant conditioning interplay, is the evidence that imposing an electric shock – effectively pitting classical against operant conditioning - will not only disrupt operant responses but can create “conditioned anxiety”[53]. Such research dates back to Skinner himself in researching the topic of anxiety[54] - somewhat overlooked.

To add additional research findings to those basics, which attempt to extract particular conclusions from delivering electric shocks to animals, Rusinov (1973)[55] found that certain repetitive training conditioning procedures produced unique electroencephalographic brain waves in dogs, which recurred when the dogs were out in their kennels on rest days at exactly the time the tests had taken place on each of the laboratory days (this biological clock being accurate to within 30 seconds in a 24-hour period) indicating that the dogs do not simply “recover and forget” the electric shock. The “so what” should be obvious - canines internalise what the handler does to them and when (i.e. they appear to biologically record not only the event, but the time it occurred).

Furthermore, Beerda (1997)[56] found that laboratory experiments using electric shock paired with a buzzer sound, designed to inhibit unwanted learned or natural behaviours, produced voluntary responses – such as ceasing the behaviour or avoiding the shock (such as lifting a foot) but also produced involuntary conditioning, in which the dog’s adrenal glands are being conditioned to secrete adrenaline and cortisol, both of which are indicators of stress – a critical factor in problem behaviour and physical health. The dogs also showed fear behaviourisms of crouching, trembling, lowered tail positions, as well as attacks on inanimate and animate objects in the environment[57]. This type of evidence just seems to be ignored by modern day electric shock collar training proponents (and advocates of electronic buzzer-shock invisible fencing – refer above at 3. Safety (e) Invisible Fencing). Again, to emphasise a point already made, we are not suggesting a dog never experiences stress or conditioning as to what actions might bring undesirable consequences, but we are suggesting that canine trainers open their minds a little and distinguish “good stress from bad and unnecessary stress” and think more about the collateral damage they can create.

All these issues mean that not only will the animal’s reaction to a stimulus be a complex interplay of voluntary and involuntary, learned and natural, responses, but sporadic results are possible (if not the norm – there are so very many warnings) leading to frustration of the handler attempting to use assumed Pavlovian or Skinnerian logic to train a dog with electronic compulsion, treating the dogs like rats in a cage. Potentially, the natural inclination of the handler is to increase the level of coercive action in the hope/belief that the distance control is not effective or dog’s ignorance of the message is to blame and, in the case of the e-collar, is the handler properly aware that they are signaling the dog to “activate” (go harder/faster) or “stop” (or in the police/bite sport parlance - “out!”) or recall to the handler? So – hit it harder and see what happens? And get the timing and level just perfect? Or did the dog simply not understand the signal and hence the requirement, based on poor training?

Doesn’t sound like a formula for success, does it? Add these issues to always needing the collar and the control in place, the dog distinguishing which shock means stop, come, down, fetch or go faster, etc. – and no over-riding prey drive dominating the dog - and it works just fine? Hmmmm - again, ask why an electric pulse rather than a voice or gesture cue?

How proponents suggest we introduce the e-collar

There are some hilarious (for the warped sense of humour) YouTube videos describing how to introduce the e-collar to a dog (just Google it - a full bibliography would create another Article) which mostly use the word “stim” and pretend that sometimes it is not aversive (hey – it’s just “activation” or “negative reinforcement” and a gentle, positive introductory experience). A common example demonstrated shows a trainer teaching a dog to go to a “place” (dog bed or platform) by applying punishment to “activate” it, then stopping when the dog complies (the negative reinforcement part). It would be a lot easier to use shaping by successive approximations – all positive, no aversives, so why use the aversive shock at all?[58] The same illogical justification appears for the recall – commonly demonstrated using a long lead and coordinating the “stim” with a tug on the lead, often with the verbal/gesture cue at the same time. What’s “funny” about these demonstrations is that the dogs clearly demonstrates that the word or gesture cue gets them moving – the shock applied with the perverse logic of “negative reinforcement” is totally redundant to the process and offers no learning (except maybe learning something about the character of the trainer)[59]. Will the e-collar trained dog ever figure out whether to “go to a place” or “recall” when shocked? Answer – yes – with an associated hand gesture or voice cue – but then - why the shock?

Are there more sensible approaches to e-collar introduction? Well yes, to a point – given that the end result is still utilising a tool unnecessary for most canine training and behaviour management scenarios and so subject to misuse and even abuse. As an example of a semi-reasonable approach, Ed Frawley of Leerburg ™ does suggest a progression of training which goes as follows (paraphrasing, but, hopefully, not misrepresenting)[60]:

1.     Build a good relationship first (agree wholeheartedly - see companion Training article on this website Zen and the art of companion dog training).

2.     Never use remote unless already done remote collar protocol/ introduction (see earlier discussion in this article – and ask “Why?”).

3.     Use a (shock) level enough to get the desired behaviour (hmm – that gives idiots plenty of leeway – just turn it up and try again!?).

4.     Never use a remote unless the dog already understands the command (so then why use the remote if the dog is already doing what the trainer wants when the verbal/gesture signal is delivered?).

5.     Add a verbal marker (cue/command) before using the “stim” (so, again, why use the remote if the dog is learning or already understands the cue?).

6.     Never use a remote in a Dog Park, which are anyway a bad idea (100% agree – disasters waiting to happen while guardians are on the phone or chatting and a fracas occurs at a distance – no concept of dog behaviours/reactions in a group).

7.     Never use a remote to stop or prevent a dog fight – because your dog will think the enemy dog caused that shock, escalating the confrontation (definitely agree that this likely association of the shock with the object of fear or aggression is a major issue).

8.     If you use remote training, never assume the dog no longer needs the collar – dogs know if they have it on, like an “invisible leash” (hmm – so the dog learns to respond to the collar, not the guardian, despite the relationship? Is the relationship now with the shock collar rather than the guardian? Have you just created a Frankenstein?).

9.     Control your temper – never use the e-collar if in a bad temper (Oh, oh – right there is a major issue we like to ignore – mood, frustration and temper are challenges to control at the best of times – throw in a little frustration with the canine training and BAM!).

10.  Never use “cheap” remote collars (OK – only buy expensive ones from the popular “experts” who promote them for profit? If you buy MY e-collar you will be OK?)[61].

Now, again, are my comments in italics a little cynical? Even harsh? Maybe – but maybe closer to the truth than e-collar promoters will admit?

I should note that I have watched many Leerburg^TM videos and listened to the advice offered, always keeping an open mind and sifting through to understand the logic and looking for the “good ideas”. I would rarely discount any of these famous (although in some other cases, infamous) trainers, but rather seek to understand why they believe in and promote the canine training techniques they do. Suffice it to say that Ed Frawley[62] has a huge amount of experience, credibility, kudos and really good advice, which I give him full credit for and truly admire – I am just struggling to include the electric shock collar recommendations in those categories of admiration.

Another (seemingly convincing) example of e-collar “conditioning” so the dog “loves the shock collar” is delivered in the above referenced video by Gun Dog It Yourself[63], in which we are instructed that the protocol means the dogs just love their shock collars, because it is Pavlovian conditioned - like the rattle of the car keys or the leash coming off the hook by the door. One is, however, put in mind of the example provided by Snider (2017) illustrating that it is not the shock collar the dogs have come to love, any more than it is the car keys, it is the exercise and adventure signaled by that tool they are hoping for[64]. Obvious, with a moment’s thought.

The BIG question – Why?

Some very prolific and well known dog trainers still promote the ideas of “pack leadership”, dominance[65] and in the next breath will instruct on a “hierarchy of tools”.[66] Two really out of date concepts here and traps for beginners.

Firstly, let’s look at the pack leader concept; thoroughly overhauled twenty-five years ago[67] is not at all helpful, apart from misguiding beginners into thinking they might need to dominate their new puppy with a thorough shake or dominance roll. Here a distinction is drawn between “pack leader” (the debunked alpha wolf concept) and “good leadership” - such as showing by example, setting a regular schedule of exercise, training, grooming, play, feeding, etc. – effectively building the canine-human bond through care and respect based on thoughtful management and ethical positive reinforcement teaching methods.

Secondly, the hierarchy of tools concept – one of my personal favorites – perpetuates the myth that tools train the dog, rather than the handler doing that with cues, direction, shaping and rewards – so if the dog is not “obeying”, simply ramp up to the next level of abusive tool, rather than practicing patience, perseverance and considering the welfare and relationship matters.

Let’s try to go back to basics. To even begin to answer “Why use an electric shock collar for training a dog”, for a moment stepping outside of the framework of the multi-million-dollar business and dubious paid promotion ethic, we need to return to the question of using pain and punishment in dog training – not a small nor uncontentious topic.

Maybe it’s about the complex neurobiology thesis suggesting that pleasure and pain are joined at the hip and stress teaches resilience, drawing a thin, but confusing, parallel between neurotransmitter indicators of relief with those of resilience, based principally on caged rat experiments[68]. So, that theory contends, not only is there a fundamental flaw in punishment-free or force-free dog training, but you cannot effectively implement the one without the other, because the brain needs pain to understand pleasure to maintain homeostasis[69]. Sounds like those strange esoteric arguments about no light without darkness, or no good without evil – more worthy of a cult following than applied animal ethology or epigenetics. This highly dubious contention in the dog training context has been questioned in the companion Article on this website The Operant Conditioning Model Fallacy and is , quite frankly, a nonsense misinterpretation of “science” to prove something the proponent already believes. The worry is that the average dog trainer might be cowed by the threat of “scientific evidence”. Don’t be - just labelling a statement as "scientific" or "science backed" does not make it true, nor even applicable to the question at hand. On this general issue – and worthy of further thought – is the observational hypothesis of Konrad Lorenz (1937)[70] introducing the concept of a "releaser," which are stimuli that serve to "unlock" or release innate instinctive reactions in animals (relevant to the shocked or threatened rat experiment), deciding that behavior is a taxonomic character and therefore a diagnostic trait of a particular species, not synchronous nor transferrable across species. So, a shocked rat experiment scientifically proves your dog will benefit from punishment? It’s not that simple - think again.

So really, why use an electric shock collar? It seems all too often to relate to a macho tough-guy thing, as discussed above. Could be wrong – I am not one of those tough guys who brook no nonsense from their dogs, I don’t speak the language, so I could be missing something? Incidentally, I enjoy a good Arnie or Sylvester movie as much as the next guy, but I believe that Chuck’s dog made choices and did what it was asked out of the shared bond of trust, respect and admiration, not fear of an electric shock directive or correction[71].

There are numerous dog training videos on YouTube of working on a dog’s on-leash reactivity towards passing dogs by hitting it with an electric shock (the same trainers favour jerking a prong collar) whenever it starts to react to another dog – commonly referring to this clever procedure as “giving the dog a stimulation” or maybe a “correction”. Wow – the dog is already stimulated, as seen in its actions – do we really need to “stimulate” it further at this point, especially without any redirection as to what it should do instead?[72]. Is this naïve “remedy” purely and simply “aversion therapy” reminiscent of Zorba the Greek?[73] Now, admittedly, some of these examples show the trainer delivering a food reward when the dog disengages, but then it is deliberately provoked again by an assistant passing with a strange dog (or toy dog) and the “stimulation/ correction” is repeated. Does it work? Yes - eventually the dog stops reacting to the strange dog (all in a magical 10 minutes for the sake of good theatre) but is this because it is confused and goes into shutdown mode, or just gets used to the strange dog and getting a treat? Was the electric pulse really a necessary part of the reprogramming procedure, or is this simply desensitization and counterconditioning which works without the electric shock? Ah – we have an answer – if done without the shock collar, how would the trainer market his own brand of fantastic shock collars to an audience who think they are witnessing a push button, instant, guaranteed fix?

Really, it seems to all come down to a firmly held belief based on outdated dog training concepts and hence a lasting belief in applying aversives as a fundamental necessity in dog training, whether required or justified by some misunderstood logic – or not. Either way, the e-collar actions put aside all thoughts of canine sensibilities and the value of the human-canine relationship, bond and trust.

Genuinely knowledgeable, competent, caring, professional dog trainers would do well to separate themselves from this training based on “compulsion without competence training” nonsense.

Summary and Conclusion

Social media and print justifications of using electric shock collars in dog training by “experts” and “influencers” are so abundant as to be commonplace and, as a consequence, has moved from being hard to ignore to being almost convincing. But not quite – the big question of “Why do dog trainers imagine they need to use such an aversive tool” remains. Is the answer to that question that many dog trainers promote these tools because their public (i.e. paying customers) have been led to believe in the push-button quick fix, zero effort, 100% guaranteed training solution? A number of pundits actually do paid promotions for shock collar brands or manufacture and/or market their own branded varieties, perpetuating the myth, but ignoring all the negatives and downsides. A harsh conclusion might be that perhaps profit is the basis for their promotion of the tool?

Electric shock collars are open to being interpreted as broadly and generally applicable to all dog training, based on specialist applications which supposedly demonstrate/claim success in areas such as police/military style man-work. At best that is simplistic and, at worst, misleading. The fundamental fallacy – the missing premise, or broken link – is that this does not indicate application to all canine management and training strategies and protocols (but, if it did, many more shock collars could be sold – so let’s not mention that?).

Electric shock collars (along with prong collars, slip leads, Halti/front attach no-pull and nose/face harnesses, choke-chain collars and “throw chains”) are part of the aversive basis of what is referred to as “coercive training”, “inhibitory training” or “old school pressure escape/avoidance training” – under any label involving force and/or punishment as key elements of the teaching protocol. The unique danger with electric shock collars is that they are particularly open to abuse by frustrated handlers (and a few “tough guy” trainers) trying to demonstrate control of their (often partly trained) dogs, simply because of the ability and (apparently) the temptation to rachet-up the setting to deliver a more powerful shock, satisfying the desire to apply a “more severe correction”.

So – PLEASE – canine training “experts” and “influencers” – accept the responsibility of your position of authority and your public facing role! 

The stance in this article is not that electric shock collars should be banned[74] – they just should not be sold and used by a public of naïve dog guardians/trainers putting their faith in popular advocates of training with aversives, many of whom are referring to the specialist military/law enforcement style training, but then it becomes generalized to all dog training. Furthermore, this is not a promotion of force-free training (if only to avoid that Pandora’s Box of spurious arguments and the unproductive exaggerations and ridicule the “balanced fraternity” seem to delight in). The problem being highlighted is that these purely aversive methods only communicate “that’s not what I commanded”, “stop what you are doing” and at the worst it says “freeze – stop everything”, but does not communicate what the dog should do instead – what is the preferred/replacement behaviour. Those aversive protocols are outdated and have been revised – certain trainers just need to catch up.

Perhaps the “electric shock to curtail unwanted behaviour or encourage a desired reaction” logic goes all the way back to Pavlovian and Skinnerian experiments which demonstrated promotion and inhibition of learned and natural behaviours. However, since then, it has been shown how punitive actions produce acute stress and fear behaviours[75] and even that certain unconditioned stimuli are actually conditioned by as little as one or two exposures, suggesting that assumptions about Pavlovian classical versus Skinnerian operant conditioning to trigger reactions are by no means simple and clear - and even that spontaneous, innate canine reactions may be on shaky ground[76].

The evolution of understanding and change in dog training protocols are not about throwing out everything from the past and replacing it with the new. Real advancement comes from understanding the past, carrying forward the good ideas and what worked well without collateral damage, then adding in new concepts and methodologies to initiate a better way forward. This means admitting that bad dog training ideas and practices were just that – bad ideas and practices - we can move beyond those with what we know today. Modern dog guardians are (mostly and finally) not thinking of dogs as machines, but as sentient beings.

I admit that keeping an open mind and being able to revisit a belief or firmly held position is not easy – which is what I am asking proponents of electric shock collars for training dogs to do. However, in my case (I will also admit) it seems most unlikely that I will revise my views on the use of electric shock collars in dog training. But –

·       If presented with an avalanche of factual and irrefutable evidence of dog response, behaviour, welfare and guardian (not electric collar) bond and -

·       If all arguments presented here against the e-collar use/abuse are convincingly refuted and –

·       If examples for which positive reinforcement training cannot possibly work are proven (not just superficial anecdotes like “I tried positive training with treats and that didn’t work” without understanding exactly the challenge, what protocols were tried and over what time period and how many repetitions) and –

·       If a clear distinction is made between highly specialized training regimes and requirements, the canine breed, nature and level of drive - and the “average” dog obedience/manners training and -

·       If dog trainers will stop promoting e-collars for their own profit, but only promote such use because they can prove how they work in special training regimes when verbal and body language cues and any requirements of “positive reinforcement reprogramming behaviours” don’t (and no – as above, not in a cynical, click- bait, 10-minute session, because, by hearsay, “treat training” failed) and –

·       If it is demonstrated how users must, can and will be properly trained before the e-collar purchase and abuse sequence is triggered and –

·       If the big question of “Why add the e-collar to the training regime” is satisfactorily answered in every case ……...

……. Then, if all of these elements are satisfactorily addressed, I am willing to keep the door ajar.

This is not “hedging my bets” nor “being undecided”, it is simply about being an open-minded educator and researcher, always asking “what if I’m wrong”, “under what circumstances could there be a different answer” – and - “what can I learn?”

I ask no more of others.

References

I sent certain internationally recognised dog trainers, with recently expressed views on the use of e-collars, a final draft of this paper (I have since made a few minor clean-up edits). These respected (by the general canine training public and myself) canine experts included Ed Frawley of Leerburg ™ (via wife Cindy), Susan Garret and Stonnie Dennis. The Leerburg and Garret teams acknowledged receipt. I realise these high profile folks are busy and probably get inundated with comments so I have waited a few weeks before publishing (but then some have an entire staff, which I do not). So – should I receive feedback from these sources I will acknowledge that, include relevant comments and update this Article as appropriate.  

[1] Frawley, E. (2023) Leerburg^TM; [the first quote] from Ed Frawley's 10 Rules for Using A Remote Collar: https://youtu.be/hGKXzp-PShM?si=n9_i9N-U1innyqeO: and [the second quote] from Shield K9 Dog Training: RE THINK the ELECTRIC Collar! You’re using it WRONG! https://youtu.be/OAoVf3OJqJk?si=X5F1Uqmzw6faJpH-.  This Shield K9 video is only to be viewed by the strong of heart and stomach – but if viewed, note the severe fallacies in canine handling and logic – the dog is given shocks at a dial level of 120 (!) whilst heeling perfectly(!) and you will see the dog’s involuntary, severe head and neck twist as the dog is shocked (!) all meant to prove that the shock doesn’t worry the dog (!). Then the dog’s ball reward is thrown to the rear to prove that the dog heels perfectly not because of the reward game with the ball but because of the shock collar – but see when the handler stops, the dog looks back at the ball on the ground – not at the handler to see the next fun cue(!). Oh, my giddy aunt! Completely unnecessary, appalling treatment of a devoted canine with a handler totally unaware of the dog’s body language and spontaneous actions – even though he has video evidence to re-watch. And yes, that dog is keen and excited – but definitely not, I suggest, because of the electric shocks, but rather because of the action and the chance to play.

[2] Just to get this point in early in the discussion – although I do repeat the sentiment further in this article – I have great respect for Ed Frawley (credited with the first quote) and the Leerburg^TM business, based on decades of training and breeding experience he has personally contributed to the canine world. I would add that Ed Frawley does not actually and specifically recommend the e-collar for universal use in every dog behavior and training situation (and often advises against its use) but that does not sit entirely comfortably with the “best dog training tool that’s ever been devised” quote – the explanation and caveats are lacking and therefore somewhat misleading. So, this – and what follows – is not a personal attack – it is pointing out where we disagree and I invite the contemplation and discussion of the issues. I cannot be that generous regarding the second quote from Shield K9.

[3] Which might be argued as a case for an e-collar. However, a dedicated guardian might alternatively teach the dog to check in regularly with the handler for hand signals – that would make for a challenging and interesting trial – in fact Dodman, N. (1999) refers to a 3-yr old deaf Dalmatian which could remember 43 words of American sign language: in Dogs Behaving Badly; Bantam Books (at p. 36 in 2000 paperback version). But - Na – e-collar might be less effort?

[4] Palman D (2020)  Not Using Force in Police Dog Training; Maine Warden Service; United States Police Canine Association; URL https://uspcak9.memberclicks.net › assets › Resource (PDF); Quote “On the street with a police dog, the dog’s ability to think is an invaluable asset. All of the dog’s natural abilities are put to work for the handler. All the situations that are encountered in real work can never be duplicated during training. I would much prefer to have a thinking dog at my side instead of a preprogrammed machine that has learned to react because he fears punishment”.

[5] Streets to Seminars: The Evolution of K9 Training with Justin Rigney (2024) YouTube https://youtu.be/Aw-SjTH5BzU?si=O-rIrzXzcfV6IBhS recognises that the “old cavemen of yesteryear” methods are no longer relevant and are replaced by “inducive” methods and (paraphrasing) building a strong relationship with the dog rather than just “cooking” it with a clunky electric collar.

[6] Department of Defence (USA) (2019) U.S. Military's Dog Training Handbook: Official Guide for Training Military Working Dogs; US Air Force; Rowman & Littlefield | The Lyons Press; 304pp. Numerous enlightened references in this handbook to the benefits of positive reinforcement training, sequencing of training techniques and risks of attempting to train using force and punishment – e.g. pp. 82-99 and 100-112. Negative reinforcement broken into stages of “escape”, “avoidance” and “criterion avoidance” (perfecting following the cue) supported by positive reinforcement is explained at pp. 106-109. Core training thesis is “CST” (Clear Signals Training) made up of 1) Teach using positive reinforcement; 2) Clear communications; 3) Only use compulsion when the dog knows the requirement and deemed necessary – but fair and effective (basically negative reinforcement, not punishment and not arbitrarily e-shocking the dog) – see Ch. 4.

[7] Crippen L (2017) Military Working Dogs: Guardians of the Night; TRADOC; URL https://www.army.mil/article/56965/military_working_dogs_guardians_of_the_night#: Palman (op. cit.) at Footnote 4.

[8] Haverbeke, A. et al  (2008)  Training methods of military dog handlers and their effects on the team's performances; Applied Animal Behaviour Science Volume 113, Issues 1–3, September 2008, Pages 110-122, describe harsh training methods in the Belgian military environment and observe the “depressed/fearful” (this author’s words) body language of the dogs after training – and suggest a more positive reinforcement regime would work more effectively. And see Palman (op. cit.) at Footnote 4.

[9] See especially Leerburg's Dominant Dog Collar Vs Knockoffs @ https://youtu.be/NxQDPsb18VI?si=HFkH0eWhB4_vIhrY and see The Evolution of K9 Training with Justin Rigney (2024) in Footnote 5. For a discussion of the downsides of prong collars – especially the damage they can inflict, see eileenanddogs: Why prong collars hurt; at URL https://eileenanddogs.com/blog/2017/08/10/why-prong-collars-hurt/

[10] Cooper, J. J., et. al.  (2014) The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training; PLoS ONE 9(9): e102722; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102722 concluded no consistent benefit from e-collar training but greater welfare concerns compared with positive reward based training.

[11] This is the basis of the increasingly touted NePoPo system, based on Negative-Positive-Positive, in which the punishment is applied then removed (that’s the negative - the first Positive is that the pain is now removed, then the dog may be rewarded – the final Positive: further referenced below and see https://www.nepopotraining.com/). One is left wondering why not just show the dog what is cued and then apply a single Positive? Oh wait – then you wouldn’t need another shock collar sale, would you? Also see companion Article on this website The Operant Conditioning Model Fallacy. Also consider Hineline, P. N. (1977) negative Reinforcement and Avoidance; pp. 364-414 in Honig, W. K. and Staddon, E. R. (2022) Handbook of Operant Conditioning; Routledge, NY; 689pp [originally published by Prentice Hall 1977] who approaches the research from the perspective of shock-delay and shock-deletion.

[12] Department of Defence (USA) (2019) U.S. Military's Dog Training Handbook (op. cit.); esp. pp. 107 and 161. In a similar paradigm, Hineline, P. N. and Rachlin, H. (1969) Escape and avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key; J. Experimental Analysis of Behavior 12/4 pp. 533-538 (https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1969.12-533) determined that it was easier to train pigeons using food positive reinforcement than electric shock punishment and the reinforcement needed to come first.

[13] See companion articles on this website Should certain dog training devices be banned? and

The Operant Conditioning Model Fallacy. 

[14] The word "coercion" does not mean simply convincing a dog to do what you want - using treats, petting or mild leash communication/guidance – rather, the strict definition of coercion is "persuading someone to do something by using force or threats".

[15] Scott, J. P. and Fuller, J. L. (1965) Genetics and the social behaviour of the dog; Univ. Chicago Press; 506pp; [paperback published 1998] especially at pp. 203-204 in the 1998 paperback.

[16] Prevalent in the famous works of Most, K (Colonel) (reprint 2001) Training Dogs: A Manual; original 1910, translated to English from the German 1954; Dogwise Publ.; 214pp; and Koehler, W. R. (1962) The Koehler Method of Dog Training: Howell; republ. 1996 Hall & Co. USA: 378pp (Koehler trained a number of dogs for movie roles). Note that we are not stating that everything these authors wrote about dog training is wrong – for example, Colonel Most referenced “primary inducements”, which might be seen as the precursor to the luring and reward methods in modern dog training – it is simply that the total concept of dog training has moved on and away from coercive training techniques, without disposing of some past “good ideas” which can still find a place in the sensible application of the positive reinforcement training regime.

[17] Effectively “learned helplessness” – to witness the enforcement of learned helplessness on dogs just watch a couple of Dog Daddy YouTube videos (but have a sick bag handy) and for research look at Overmier, J. B. & Seligman, M. E. (1967) Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding; Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology; 63(1):28-33. For an expose of more recent articles ranging from 2002 to 2021 see URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/learned-helplessness#: [Note that a number of experiments described read as unpleasantly as the aversive techniques being discussed]. Maier, S. F. and Seligman, E.P. (2016) Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights from Neuroscience; Psychol Rev. 2016 Jul;123(4):349–367; note that "Passivity in response to shock is not learned. It is the default, unlearned response to prolonged aversive events ... " [available at Nat. Libr. Med. URL https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4920136/ ].

[18] See above discussion and references at Footnotes 11, 12 and 13.

[19] Overall, K. L., (2007) Why electric shock is not behavior modification; Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2, 1-4:

Overall, K. L. (2018) Beware the misdirection offense: the truth about shock, aversives and punishment; Journal of Veterinary Behavior; 25, pp. iv-vi:

Masson, S. et al, (2018) Electronic training devices: discussion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the position statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology (ESVCE); Journal of Veterinary Behavior; 25, pp. 71-75:

Todd, Z. (2018) Barriers to the adoption of humane dog training methods; Journal of Veterinary Behavior; 25 pp. 28-34:

Cooper, J.J. et al (2014) The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training; PLoS One; URL https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102722 :

Schilder M.B.H. and van der Borg, J.A.M. (2004) Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short- and long-term behavioural effects; Appl. Anim. Behaviour Science 85 (3-4), 319-334.

Hutchinson, R.R. (2022) By-products of Aversive Control; pp.415-431 in Honig, W. K. and Staddon, E. R. (2022) Handbook of Operant Conditioning; Routledge, NY; 689pp; originally published by Prentice Hall 1977.

[20] See research findings of Rusinov (1973) referred to below at Footnote 55 and accompanying discussion of dog’s internalizing certain actions they are subject to.

[21] Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. (2001) Dogs – a New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution: Univ. Chicago Press: 352pp; at p. 110.

[22] For fulsome discussions of the pros and cons of positive reinforcement versus punishment-based training, as well as the complexities of the “balanced training” advocated by many, see companion articles on this website Reinforcement vs punishment: A dog trainer's perspective. and AVSAB vs Balabanov analysis; and The Operant Conditioning Model Fallacy.

[23] Dog trainers who fully buy-in to the 4 quadrants of Operant Conditioning without question would actually have to agree with this label, because this is exactly how they use these tools – as part of the aversive quadrants (see companion Article on this website “The Operant Conditioning Model Fallacy”).

[24] TENS = Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation

[25] URL https://www.thedogline.com.au/buy/educator-the-boss-remote-dog-trainer-et-800

[26] Suburban K9 Dog Training (2024) Are E Collars Cruel? Dog Expert Explains Benefits and Risks!!!: https://youtu.be/EqNtxrjh45w?si=_2a8BV6VGtWZPApE – story of dog chasing a deer out of hearing range due to wind conditions and being hurt: compare Footnote 19 observations.

[27] Allowing for barometric pressure and atmospheric ionization effects – but still remarkable.

[28] Tom Davis: E-collar training steps for beginners; https://youtu.be/OCDW12Q9etE?si=DuuS_YmrGNxuRiAG; see also https://www.gundogsupply.com/dog-training-collars which lists some brands with ranges of one to two miles (for use with gundogs) – see “e-collars buyers guide” on that website.

[29] Johnson, A. C. and Wynne, C. D. L. (2024) Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behaviour in Dogs; Animals; 14, 2632; URL https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632 (and see following Footnotes 30-33).

[30] “… Increased arousal – increased arousal levels increase your dog’s pain tolerance (this is a strong survival instinct). This explains why a dog who has severe silent pain can still chase after a ball or compete in sports such as agility or flyball….” from Forest Canine: Pain in dogs - The Harsh Reality; URL https://www.forestcanine.co.uk/post/silent-pain-in-dogs-the-harsh-reality 

[31] “When dogs become excited, their adrenaline levels rise, leading to a state of heightened arousal. In this state, their attention span decreases, making it challenging for them to focus on commands. Additionally, excitement can override their training, causing them to prioritise the source of their excitement over obedience….” from Paws, Claws and Tails: URL https://pawsclawstails.com.au/unlocking-the-mystery-why-does-my-dog-ignore-commands-when-excited/ .

[32] China, L. et al (2020) Efficacy of Dog Training with and without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive Reinforcement. Front Vet Sci. 2020; 7:508.

[33] Salgirli, Y. Schalke, E, Boehm, I. Hackbarth, H. (2012) Comparison of learning effects and stress

between 3 different training methods (electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting signal) in Belgian Malinois Police Dogs; Revue Méd. Vét., 163, 11, 530-535 PDF @ https://share.google/yJtU7uOCkoHAm1I4O 

[34] Refer companion Article on this website Do we unfairly manipulate dogs?

[35] No – not making allowances for the out of control fifty million-plus feral and pariah dogs on the loose in India (with a related global statistic of the highest cases of rabies’ deaths) and other feral breeds elsewhere.

[36] Many examples exist: recent proponent is Canine Revolution Dog Training  E Collar Training: A Beginner's Guide to Safe & Effective Use @ YouTube https://youtu.be/BJYHZEkNTnQ?si=hA_nfeLQrHa6mWPa: note how in this video the use of an e-collar is completely redundant, as the dog is following cues very nicely through positive reinforcement already – the argument about snakes and dangerous roads is mentioned but not addressed – maybe in the next video?

[37] Personal experience over years of country life and on farms in Australia suggests that snakes are seen by dogs as natural enemies – even the very first time they see one, snakes are hated, avoided if possible and even attacked (that primal predatory drive thing again). Adding a shock to the dog is more likely to convince it that the hatred is justified than make it leave the snake alone.

[38] An example is cited by Campbell, W. E. (1999: updated 3^rd Ed. Orig. publ. 1975) Behavior Problems in Dogs; Dogwise Publ.; 328pp; at p. iii in Intro. This effect is somewhat similar to “superstitious association” (in terms of confusion to the dog) wherein the dog associates the shock received with something that was not intended – i.e., any linkage between the invisible barrier and the shock is not understood by the dog, which might think it is random and uncontrollable punishment, or related to some other event (wind in the trees; a bird overhead; etc., anything repeated it can link in its conscience to the shock).

[39] Reisner, I (2017) The learning dog: A discussion of training methods; pp. 210 – 226, in Serpell, J (Ed) (2017) The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People: 2^nd Ed.: Cambridge University Press

416pp: discusses the ineffectiveness of these applications with reference to relevant publications at p.222.

[40] https://www.nepopotraining.com/ website for NePoPo^TM training.

[41] See https://www.martinsystem.com/shop and https://www.duck-food.com/en/pioneer-10/michael-bart-bellon# to get the whole picture.

[42] Doggett Style (2025) 3 HUGE E-Collar Mistakes Causing RECALL Issues: https://youtu.be/S9gDMOV8ArI?si=dK5d38AcyFSig4xw shows a scene of his dog in a large field – no livestock, wildlife distractions.

[43] Doggett Style (2025) YouTube; Should You E-Collar Train Your Dog? https://youtu.be/9mJjnpTmayg?si=3ey5YcVUZlzbgqdh

[44] Lindsay, S. R. (2005) Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: V. 3, Procedures and Protocols; Blackwell Publ.; 795 pp.; Chapter 9; and especially pp. 616-627 in the context of this paper (the whole chapter is a valuable resource for thoughts on the subject – albeit up to 2005).

[45] Lindsay (op.cit.): Direct extracts from p. 622.

[46] Lindsay (op.cit.): p.625

[47] Lindsay (op. cit.) Chapter 10 – detailed analysis of “cynopraxis” in which he recognizes “…. the emotional effects of reward… (are to) …mobilize active modal strategies (e.g., searching, exploring and risk taking) whereas … punishment mobilize(s) passive modal strategies (e.g., hesitating, ritualizing, and risk avoidance)” (p. 637).

[48] Positive reinforcement was hailed as obtaining better results than punishment and fear from as early as 1848 in sporting and gun dog training; see Hutchinson, W. N. (1848) Dog Breaking: The Most Expeditious, Certain and Easy Method, Whether Great Excellence or Only Mediocrity be Required, with Odds and Ends for Those Who Love the Dog and the Gun; 4^th ed; London, John Murray. Republ. (2013) Vintage Dog Books; 430pp.

[49] As referenced above see Palman D (2020) Not Using Force in Police Dog Training; Maine Warden Service; United States Police Canine Association; URL https://uspcak9.memberclicks.net › assets › Resource (PDF): c.f. Department of Defence (USA) (2019) U.S. Military's Dog Training Handbook: Official Guide for Training Military Working Dogs; US Air Force; Rowman & Littlefield | The Lyons Press; 304pp; Haverbeke, A. et al  (2008)  Training methods of military dog handlers and their effects on the team's performances; Applied Animal Behaviour Science Volume 113, Issues 1–3, September 2008, Pages 110-122, describe harsh training methods in the Belgian military environment and observe the “depressed/fearful” (this authors words) body language of the dogs after training – and suggest a more positive reinforcement regime would work more effectively.

[50] Suburban K9 Dog Training (2024) E Collar Training For beginners: Acclimation to Stim: YouTube https://youtu.be/fNt0h6hiDQo?si=u2NqVJhvHO0qpGvx: Davis, T (2023) E collar training for beginners/How to train a dog using the remote collar!: YouTube https://youtu.be/OTUgYi-Rq2M?si=SYSTBZagMaHHQDFP  and “E Collar Training HACKS For BEGINNERS” (2024) YouTube https://youtu.be/iJkpo2tUuqg?si=BhKLL77NdFVUS3W8: These videos are instructive if only because the dogs these pundits demonstrate with already know the cues/commands (so why the heck do you need the e-collar?) and the often stated “it’s just about breaking focus, not punishment”. We believe you.

[51] YouTube Gun Dog It Yourself The Shocking Truth About E-Collar Training;  URL: https://youtu.be/4vzpRFvfDho?si=LvX7r1Gv5oy3TPes ; this video discusses placing an electric shock collar on the tail and around the belly of the dog to achieve the desired response; also describes preferred collars which deliver the hammer blow to achieve outcomes.

[52] Griffin, D. R. (1976) The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience; Rockefeller U.P.; 135pp [1^st edition]. For an overview see Ristau, C A. (2022) Revisiting Donald Griffin, founder of cognitive ethology; Animal Sentience 2022.421; reviews (extracted) “Griffin’s concepts regarding the ethical implications of animal sentience, communication and social behavior to better understand their experienced life and apply it to improving conservation methods”; https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol6/iss31/11/ Also 1981/2 revised/enlarged  at https://share.google/mHpHcZ0Extg0tvQlP pdf 208-225 pp which addressed some of his critics views.

[53] Blackman, D. (1977) Conditioned suppression and the effects of classical conditioning on Operant Behavior; pp. 340-363 in Honig, W. K. and Staddon, E. R. (2022) Handbook of Operant Conditioning; Routledge, NY; 689pp; originally published by Prentice Hall 1977.  

[54] Estes, W. K. and Skinner, B. F. (1941) Some quantitative properties of anxiety, J. Experimental Psychology: 29; pp. 390-400.

[55] Rusinov (1973) Electrophysiology of the Central Nervous System; Plenum/Consultants Bureau, New York; 517pp: Note - also publ. 1970 and 2012 [Springer Verlag].

[56] Beerda, B. (1997) Stress and Well-being in Dogs, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; 149pp.

[57] Hutchinson, R.R. (2022) By-products of Aversive Control; pp.415-431 (esp. pp. 416 & 418) in Honig, W. K. and Staddon, E. R. (2022) Handbook of Operant Conditioning; Routledge, NY; 689pp; originally published by Prentice Hall 1977.

[58] Pat Stuart (2021) YouTube video: Activation vs Aversive https://youtu.be/xz1qeyq_ta0?si=dtlWfKCO7XpKkO6U

[59] E collar training for beginners/How to train a dog using the remote collar: Tom Davis (2024): YouTube https://youtu.be/OTUgYi-Rq2M?si=6r08ibNKPqmEBSOR

[60] Frawley, E. (2023) Ed Frawley's 10 Rules for Using a Remote Collar: https://youtu.be/hGKXzp-PShM?si=53QPSYxFwFV5JTj6

[61] The same irrelevant “quality product” argument is used when discussing prong collars, with various justifications and “proper fit” advice, which totally ignore what the prongs are designed to do – dig into the dog’s neck. Leerburg^TM have recently released such an advertisement based on price (YouTube Leerburg VS Herm Sprenger Prong Collars @ https://youtu.be/nqy9RcImO4I?si=3d3a4etZO-8FJZ0d ).

[62] Ed Frawley is, incidentally, about the same age as this author, so I suspect we both have a lifetime of experience to share and well cultivated views on many subjects. This is not a personal attack – consider it an exchange of ideas.

[63] YouTube Gun Dog It Yourself The Shocking Truth About E-Collar Training; URL: https://youtu.be/4vzpRFvfDho?si=LvX7r1Gv5oy3TPes

[64] Snider, K. (2017) Turning fierce dogs friendly: Using Constructional Aggression Treatment (“CAT”) to rehabilitate aggressive and reactive dogs. Fox chapel publishing; 220pp: illustrative story of German Shepherds which appear to love their electric shock collars – because they get excited when the shock collars appear and are fitted immediately preceding a walk – deducing that the excitement was for the promise of a walk, not the lovely shock collar! When the owners extended the e-collar use (that they had thought was so successful and well loved by their dogs) to address issues with one dog with reactivity/aggression behaviours, applying the shock-collar correction reinforced the dog’s fear and knowledge that the trigger they feared and was reacting to really was a big problem. The dog could learn that seeing the trigger is a precursor to pain and the only alternative is to attack the owner – the one object it can get to.

[65] See companion Article on this website Canine dominance – is it a real thing? 

[66] Not trying to pick on anyone, but just as an example, Will Atherton at www.youtube.com/@willathertoncaninetraining

[67] Just Google it – start with Schenkel and David Meck (e.g., URL https://davemech.org/wolf-news-and-information/schenkels-classic-wolf-behavior-study-available-in-english/) and see companion Article on this website Canine dominance – is it a real thing? 

[68] A recent YouTube exposé by Dr. M. Uhde (2025) After Stress comes Relief - the Brain's Powerful Resilience Mechanism @ https://youtu.be/jQWTONZwfhM?si=Ujz5Wwo4qBYPl4FZ explains to the (apparently) less educated masses how science and scientific writings work and attempts to show that causing stress through electric shocks on mice generates positive reactions and builds resilience - maybe confusing resilience with relief and parallel endocrine/neurotransmitter outcomes. Continues the assumptions in After Stress comes Relief - the Brain's Powerful Resilience Mechanism@ https://youtu.be/jQWTONZwfhM?si=9LIU9JD1SlToAnB3.

Oh wow – make up your own mind on this tenuous link which overlooks relevance, types of stress, etc., etc., etc., not to mention the thin ice of justifying - to those who want to hear that argument - aversive dog training based on mice experiments which show little or no parallel to canine training. Dr. Uhde mentions in a podcast that her own dog could not handle an e-collar – too sensitive/nervous apparently – so instead she uses a prong collar on a long line. Shudder – right there is a whole profile analysis begging to be written.

[69] Dr. M. Uhde (2023/24) The Pleasure Paradox: When Rewards Turn into Punishment in Dog Training; YouTube https://youtu.be/WbgAe8SLsGY?si=bvylpcRlNITJJc7J.

[70] Lorenz, K. (1937) The Companion in the Bird’s World: The Auk, Volume 54, Issue 3, 1 July 1937, Pages 245–273, https://doi.org/10.2307/4078077

[71] OK – if the shock collar promoters can make stuff up, so can I – difference is, I acknowledge it! Heh, heh.

[72] I do note (with some satisfaction) that Ed Frawley of Leerburg^TM appears to agree with me on this: see Frawley, E. (2025) Can you fix reactivity with a remote collar? YouTube https://youtu.be/ZgYkHgpENS8?si=jV2q12Ea7NSij7gL: perhaps surprisingly, Shield K9 Dog Training also agrees; (2025) Haz uses the e-collar different?; YouTube https://www.youtube.com/live/039AbTG5TC4?si=37EnNakfOlxq_Hhq: although he likens the e-collar to a hammer and does suggest that any who disagree with him on its use are in the category of “crazy people with the blue hair all worked up and upset and they're going to have to double their medications” and “obese lady with the multi-coloured hair with her dog in a halti for five plus years struggling with basic reactivity that could be resolved in 10 minutes, right? She's trying to exist in a utopian ideology”- so I guess I should check my medication prescription and change my hair colour? Not a position to enlighten nor advance canine training.

[73] As a child, Zorba was obsessed with eating cherries, so he saved up and bought heaps of cherries and ate them all at once – and got very sick – obsession overcome: Zorba the Greek, 1946 Novel by Nikos Kazantzakis: rev. ed. Publ. 2014 Simon & Schuster; 368pp.

[74] See companion article on this website “Should certain dog training devices be banned?”.

[75] Campbell, W. E. (1999: updated 3^rd Ed. Orig. publ. 1975) Behavior Problems in Dogs; Dogwise Publ.; 328pp; at p. 13 (references Beerda, B (1997) Stress and Well-being in dogs; Utrecht Univ.; Netherlands; 149pp.

[76] This topic of the separation and overlap – even confusion – of spontaneous Pavlovian respondent reactions versus learned operant Skinnerian reactions, is extensively dissected in Honig, W. K. and Staddon, E. R. (2022) Handbook of Operant Conditioning; Routledge, NY; 689pp; originally published by Prentice Hall 1977; see especially Schwartz, b. and Gamzu, E. Pavlovian Control of Operant Behavior, pp.53-97: this fascinating – if complex – dissection of the subject will at least make dog trainers rethink whether the “shaping” (especially “auto-shaping”) technique is really Skinnerian operant conditioning at work or, as these authors would have it, in fact Pavlovian, based on the stimulus-reinforcer contingencies. To delve further into the subject, readers are referred to Davis, H. and Hurwitz, M. B. (eds) (1997 – 1^st pub./ reprint 2021/2023) Operant-Pavlovian Interactions; Routledge NY; 348pp.