top of page
Search

Should certain dog training devices be banned?

  • Writer: Greg Roder
    Greg Roder
  • Dec 26, 2024
  • 19 min read

Updated: Jan 12

What instruments of torture will they think of next?

 

Introduction


There are volumes written and hours of videos available about electric shock collars for dogs, as well as other tools regarded as specifically designed to be aversive[1]. The aim here is to reference just some key research findings and put a dog trainer’s perspective on the debate – albeit from a stated bias towards positive reinforcement training based on consideration for dog welfare, the overarching ethics of dog training and the desire to build - rather than jeopardize - the human-canine relationship.


As a reaction to these tools – especially the electric shock collars - there is a strong – even global – movement to ban them. Much of the discussion can be found on https://banshockcollars.ca/training.php which collates most of the arguments against these “training aids” from a wide variety of well-known/well-regarded sources and authors. In more detail, there are numerous articles about the lack of efficacy and ill-effects of electric shock collars used in dog training. Just a selection is referenced here[2] – there are very many more. Beyond those references, there are parallel studies on the use and impacts of aversive techniques in more general terms to consider[3].


As stated in another article on this website [Reinforcement vs. Punishement: A Dog Trainer's Perspective ] there is one caveat on what follows and it is repeated here. 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. Does it apply to the very special military and police dog training of high drive dogs, such as the Belgian Malinois? Well, yes – and no. Yes, in the general terms of reference as to the ethics and benefits of positive reinforcement training and teaching dogs to think and respond[4]. No – in terms of the details of what these special purpose dogs are required to learn to overcome/combat and the actions they need to perform in their special jobs. This is not an “Aha – gotcha – cop-out”, rather a recognition that we are not circulating in that special police/military dog academy and so remain reserved on expressing anything but an opinion based on the available literature and TV/YouTube style information (which can be misleading, of course) – so the “open mind” is required.

 

Summary of electric shock collar and aversive techniques studies


The intention is not to do a full-blown literature review and present the entire landscape of research and arguments regarding the impacts of e-collar and aversive training techniques on dogs and compare that academically with positive reinforcement, but simply to paint a backdrop to present the discussion of proposed bans and the new “dog training” tools recently on the market, for the average companion dog trainer to consider. Authors referenced regarding e-collars are in the footnote [2] and those referenced regarding general aversive techniques are in the footnote [3]. No apology for the selection of articles, as those quoted reference many other documents – just attempting to lead those interested into further research of their own.

 

Research on electric shock collar use [2]

 

Overall (2007 and 2018) summarizes the use of e-collars rather well as:

(1) the use of shock is not treatment for pets with behavioral concerns;

(2) the use of shock is not a way forward;

(3) the use of shock does not bring dogs back from the brink of euthanasia; instead, it may send them there; and

(4) such adversarial techniques have negative consequences that those promoting these techniques either dismiss or ignore.

That research goes on to reference the oft touted “improved behaviour” as simply immobility/learned helplessness and notes that proponents don’t analyse the long-term impacts of using electric shock as a training mechanism. Furthermore, Overall asks, if the “stimulus” of the e-collar is just to get attention, does the trainer really need an electric collar or shock to do that? If so, has the dog’s normal responses to auditory and visual cues been overridden?  Wouldn’t these dogs have responded to clear signaling and humane training designed to provide them with a clear, contextual set of instructions?

 

Masson, et al, (2018) provides an excellent summary of research findings on the risks and liabilities of using shock collars – including, but not limited to, timing of the shock; the dog’s association of the shock with the situation (i.e. misdirected aggressive response); physiological and behavioural changes seen in dogs subjected to shock collars; increased risk of resulting aggression; etc. These authors suggest that 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. 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.

 

Todd (2018) concludes, based on a large literature survey of studies, that the many negative effects of aversive training techniques include an increase in aggression, stress, and/or increased behavior problems, in reduced gaze toward the owner, which may have implications for the human-animal bond and future training. Shock collars are associated with poorer training outcomes for working dogs and pets and with signs of stress, including associating the shock with the trainer.  Also notes that not only do aversive techniques have unwanted consequences in the form of fear and aggression, but they may even be less effective than are positive techniques in teaching desired behaviours.

 

Cooper, et al (2014) suggested that there is no consistent benefit to be gained from e-collar training, but greater welfare concerns compared to positive reward training - even when e-collars are used “in accordance with best practice” (manufacturers recommendations) and the negative risks would be expected to increase when training practice falls outside this ideal (which it might be expected to do with untrained, novice or frustrated dog trainers – this author’s assumption).


Schilder and van der Borg (2004) in studies of guard dog training of German Shepherd dogs, found that reactions to the shock application was evidenced by lowered body posture, high pitched yelps, barks and squeals, avoidance, redirection, aggression, tongue flicking – all suggesting fear and/or pain. 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 – this author’s words]. The longevity of shock vs no-shock training was tested by observing regular training sessions without shocks on the two test groups. The previously shocked dogs (i.e. use of e-collar in training) demonstrated lower ear posture and more stress related behaviours – during both obedience runs and man work tests. A conclusion is that the shocked dogs have learned that the presence of their owner/trainer (or the commands) announces the receipt of a shock, even outside the training precinct. This suggests a welfare concern – at least in the presence of the owner/trainer.

  

Research on using aversives in training [3]

 

Herron, et al (2019) conducted a survey-based study to assess the behavioural effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems. This research considered a 30-item survey across 107 survey respondents. Now – there are two schools of thought on owner/guardian surveys. On the one hand, the guardians are not expert dog trainers or animal psychologists and so interpretations of dog behaviours and reactions may vary and the question is “are they reliable indicators”? On the other hand, the guardians are the closest people to their dogs in terms of knowing and judging their behaviours and reactions - and it is a means of collecting a reasonable sample of data, without devising complex and possibly punitive tests, for the dogs. In any event, this paper concluded that, in summary, confrontational/aversive training actions or corrections elicited an aggressive response from at least a quarter of the dogs. In contrast, reward-based training elicited aggression in very few dogs, regardless of the undesirable behaviour being worked on.

 

Ziv (2017) similarly found, from reviews of studies of training methods and outcomes using surveys, observational studies and interventions, that (a) aversive methods can jeopardize mental and physical health of dogs and (b) there is no evidence that punishment techniques are more effective than positive reinforcement – in fact the opposite appears to be the case.

Blackwell, et al (2008) concluded that there is an association between a lower number of potentially undesirable behaviours reported in dogs trained without the use of punishment-based techniques.


To summarise - One illustrative example


Snider (2017) in the book on “Constructional Aggression Treatment” relates a very 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. The Herron (2009) findings quoted above are relevant to this Snider analysis.


Counterpoint


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[5], 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” (direct extracts from p. 622). 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 (p. 625). This is not to conclude that Lindsay is pro-punishment and anti-reinforcement[6].


No matter how one interprets the evidence and whatever side of the debate one comes down on, the very fact that e-collars are designed as aversive tools (both in shock application and relief of shock when the desired response occurs) and that they can so easily be over-used/mis-used[7], means that the antagonists (balanced trainers, positive reinforcement and punishment-based training and behaviour modification) will most likely never see eye-to-eye. The manufacture and sales of e-collars runs to the millions, with many tens of millions in use around the world, so the marketing and sponsored arguments in favour of shock-collars are not going away.


In the end, it really comes down to personal beliefs and adherence to humane training methodologies and how competently the dog trainer achieves the training goal, with the canine-human relationship intact and the dog able to act with choice in the fashion desired by the human companion.


Warning


As stated at the onset – these referenced studies are just a selection – which this author sincerely believes is representative of the totality of studies conducted in terms of the general conclusions. There is a myriad of other reports that can be quoted – and cherry picked – to prove a particular point (the human tendency to play “gotcha!”). Readers are encouraged to go and read as much on the subject as they can access and have the inclination and time to pursue. Good places to look at further research, summaries and views are “La Chaire; bien-être animal”[8], “eileenanddogs”[9] and Lindsay (op. cit.).


My aim was to present an overview and a backdrop to the following discussion. In reading research findings, always remember that it is important to separate the data (and analyse its sample size, quality, veracity, repeatability, external unconstrained contingencies, etc.) and particularly to figure out the connection between the data and the linkages, or trends, the author is concluding or inferring. Is the researcher proving the conclusion or “drawing a long bow” and then how – if at all – might the findings relate to other research (contradictory and confirming) and the whole big picture?


Should dog electric shock collar devices be banned?


The challenges - and the contrary views – are:


1.     Will banning electric shock collars lead to increase dog abandonment and euthanasia – just because guardians give up with behaviour change efforts, and decide “there is nothing else that can be done, I’ve tried everything!”? (compare Overall, 2007 and 2018, op. cit.).

2.     Some tools (such as electric shock collars) are designed in such a way that they lend themselves to being used (over-used) harshly with dire consequences[10]. Is this the fault of the tool or the user? Could the users be banned rather than the tools? Is licensing the tool and education – training the dog guardians on the appropriate use (or not) of the tool – and controlling/policing the tool and its use the answer (a very big ask!)? Or is there simply “no appropriate use of a shock collar on any dog”?

3.     When a dog off-leash has the predatory drive, will the shock collar actually divert its attention? There is some evidence to indicate that even a high-level pulse on an e-collar will not divert the dog from its target in this situation[11]. Nor will the offer of a high-value treat in that moment – when the dog is also deaf to cues from the guardian.[12] The predatory instinct under extreme provocation is incredibly strong – a primal drive[13].

4.     The view that banning doesn’t work. Here’s why -

Firstly, in countries/states where these collars are banned, these instruments are available and are used despite the ban and threatened penalties. One has only to listen to a few podcasts, watch YouTube e-collar training advice videos or talk to dog trainers in most countries, to realise the ineffectiveness of banning (although it is admittedly a stretch, one can’t help being reminded of burning of books at stages throughout history and the USA Prohibition of 1920-1933)[14]. As a collateral damage of banning efforts, the shock collars are used in secret “under the table” and so any thought of education about the use or reasons and circumstances to use or not to use them is annihilated. 

As an example of this type of human behaviour, dog’s prong collars are legally banned from being imported into Australia[15] – however they are not actually illegal to use on a dog in New South Wales. So – many dog owners in NSW use them in the false belief that they are not breaking the law – there is, after all, no law in NSW against the use[16]. Now – really – how did they get hold of those collars? Did they magically appear on the dog, or did the guardian buy it off the internet or by travelling overseas and bringing one back in their luggage or by post? However they got hold of them, that is importing – these collars are not manufactured in Australia, but countries like China, Germany and the USA. The NSW user is certainly a collaborator or complicit as an accomplice. So – hasn't the local user breached the law? The only thing they can’t do is brag to the authorities about how clever they are to cheat the legislation. This would almost be funny if it wasn’t such a sad indictment of the human mind and a failure of the legal intent.

Secondly, humans seem to have an infinite capacity, founded in this case on their inability to train dogs humanely, to invent new forms of torture under the banner of “a new, better, faster way to get obedience from a dog”, all based on the false belief that the tool trains the dog, not the trainer. A simple example is with the marketing of the “Star Mark Pro-training collar”[17] touted as being “…. Pronged, linked design is gentle but effective in enforcing pack leadership. Helps prevent pulling and lunging behavior. Has appearance of a flat collar”. So, it is a poor excuse for using a “non-prong, prong-style collar” with the advantage that no region or enlightened training association that bans the use of such devices will realise what it is, because it has the appearance of a flat collar. But – it makes the trainer “the pack leader”! Terrific![18]


The “ban the e-collar” debate will go on – as it has for some time already – and be implemented or not – but it won’t stop the use of the banned tools. So, the discussion here will briefly look at the second issue – the invention/implementation of new aversive dog training tools recently breaking onto the market. They are examples of what humans will devise whether or not electric shock collars are banned – either to circumvent the ban, or simply to market a new tool they will tout as an amazing advance and within the law.


New instruments of torture


Two recent examples are illustrative of the point and worth drawing attention to, even though one is hesitant to add to the market exposure of these bad ideas, they are already commercially available and advertised. These “dog training tools” are being touted as the next best thing – without any mention or analysis of why such a devise is necessary and how a dog guardian might use a better method (specifically positive reinforcement) to train towards the same outcome these instruments target – without the intended discomfort, fear inducement, stress or harm to the dog. There is, of course, financial gain targeted, which seems to so often override basic ethics and morality.


1.     The figure-of-8 dog lead


This lead – rather like a looped and modified slip lead - is supposedly designed to stop a dog pulling or lunging[19] and works by riding on the dog’s snout with a special leveraged torque action supplied by the figure-8 arrangement, which facilitates not only a neck choking action on the dog without constraint, but converts that leveraged force to pull down and sideways on the dog’s snout. There is no “stop” mechanism to prevent choking damage to a dog’s neck or throat, nor a “stop” on the torque applied to its snout. Just watching this instrument being fitted makes one cringe – same effect on the dog, of course. This lead takes the previous “head halter” or “nose halter”[20] (which this author also dislikes - intensely)[21] to a new level of applied twisting force, discomfort and potential damage to the dog. How is this touted as an advance and a good thing?[22]


Learn to train the dog.


2.     The electric stick


This science fiction “advance” is a reinvention of the 1930’s cattle prod[23] – but with more “shock teeth/electrode prongs” (10 electrodes) and aimed at dogs, not bovines[24]. It is marketed as “…. a great innovative tool that has a variety of uses! It is a superb way to minimize e-collar use and provides another avenue to administer fair, humane corrections. It allows the dog to learn boundaries on its own without the handler’s involvement …. a must-have tool for dog sports”.


But - just a moment – the handler wields the tool, placing it where the dog can run into it (and nothing stopping the handler striking the dog with the tool) – so how exactly is that “without the handler’s involvement”? And if its main purpose is to minimize e-collar use and administer corrections at the whim of the handler – then understanding how this suddenly rates as “humane” is a little hard to grasp. Oh yes – it is also touted as cheaper than employing a competent dog training instructor for advice and direction on how to actually train a dog(!) – I think we can see part of the motivation here.


My main question for the inventors and proponents of this tool is – “can your dog hear auditory cues and see body language cues when it is within reach of your 10-electrode electric prod - and if so, why are you not using those cues? Do you not know how to cue your dog humanely, or is there some satisfaction in zapping a close companion with 10 electrode needles, that the rest of us just can’t seem to appreciate?”[25]


Learn to train the dog.


Conclusion


Bottom line is “learn to communicate with the dog through auditory and body language cues and avoid punitive techniques enhanced by equipment which is designed specifically to hurt the dog”. These tools are something the inventors and proponents should be ashamed of, not brag about. They are money making scams for the naïve, gullible and incompetent would-be dog trainer. Is that unfair and putting it too strongly? No – there are a lot more descriptive words one could fit in here!


Domestication of the canine species has taken roughly 10,000 to 20,000 years to get where we are now. All breeds have been "designed" for a purpose - protection, herding, search and rescue, companionship, etc. Humans have taken on a role as provider and protector - a sort of symbiotic relationship - both sides benefit – and characterised by some as a coevolutionary process[26]. This links to why this author teaches "being your dog's best friend" (reversing the old saying – see especially “Zen and The Art of Companion Dog Training” on this website). This presents a platform for all training and interactions as "Would you behave that way to your best friend? Would they still be your best friend after you did that?" Consider that in the context of using aversives – including painful leveraged collars and electric shock – in training this best friend to have fun with you, their friend and protector[27].

 

Always remember – tools don’t train the dog – you do! [28]


Positive reinforcement and sympathetic dog handling will build the relationship, bond and trust between human and canine and will not lead to fear, submission, stress and, potentially, reactivity. Positive reinforcement techniques build the dog’s capacity to think for itself and make choices in untrained/untested scenarios - and to remain their guardian’s faithful companion.


Ask yourself – why do you have a dog?

 

References


[1] That really does not brook any argument – very difficult to maintain a positive, reinforcing or even balanced and humane approach to dog training when using a prong collar or e-collar. If any doubts remain, provided you are not plagued my nightmares once you see a dog being mistreated by “inappropriate” use of a shock collar (not assuming there is an appropriate use) by a “professional” who makes his living training dogs, then look at the first minute or two of  https://youtu.be/iF6QCZGPN3E?si=4KJegDppl1BJZ9yo (but you have been warned! The image is burned on my mind!). Does this mean everything this person does is wrong? Of course not.

[2] 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.

Ziv, G. (2017) The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review; Journal of Veterinary Behavior Volume 19; pp. 50-60:

Blackwell, E. J. et al  (2008) The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs; Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3(5) pp. 207-217.

[5] 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).

[6] 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).

[7] Refer to Footnote [1].

[10] If this is in any doubt I refer the reader back to Footnote [1].

[11] “… 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

[12] “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/ .

[13] Finally, talk to some farmers or hunters about how their stock/cattle/hunting dogs chase prey (like deer, kangaroos or wild boar) through several barbed-wire fences, get severely damaged (by brambles, the wire or the boar they catch), but don’t stop the chase, to the point where some might make it home at the end of the day, but don’t survive the damage.

[14] Yes – the banning of guns debate is another example – and that is way beyond the space and purview to be dedicated to the discussion here.

[15] Under the Customs Act 1901, individuals who unlawfully import these collars can be prosecuted, facing penalties of up to $222,000; Australian border Force; URL https://www.abf.gov.au/newsroom-subsite/Pages/warning-over-spike-dog-collar-detections-31-03-2021.aspx

[16] In Australia the use of prong collars is illegal in Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland; RSPCA Knowledge Base; URL https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/are-pronged-collars-harmful-to-my-dog/# 

[20] To be fair to others, this “invention” has long been marketed in one form or another as the “Halti”, “Head Halters”, “Gentle Leader”, “Stop Pulling Training Harness”, “The Canny Collar”, etc.; just do a web search and the references will appear.

[21] Credited to Alice DeGroot (1985) as the “K-9 Kumalong”; See K-9 Kumalong: A Quantum Leap for Irish Wolfhound and Owner; Ir. Wolfhound Q8:28, 30-32, 34. Note that some globally well-respected dog trainers do think these types of instruments have a place – if properly used (whatever that means?) - at least as an interim step in correcting unwanted dog habits, provided that other training is put in place first or in conjunction with the halter, e.g. Suzanne Clothier, The Problem with Head Halters; URL https://suzanneclothier.com/article/problem-head-halters/ 

[22] Lindsay, S. R. (op.cit.) at p 32 recognised [quote] “…. that any head halter should be used with great care … as they can result in cervical strain or injury …. and ... can produce friction sores on the top of the muzzle ...”; balancing this with a need for “… “careful fitting and proper use”. This author’s question is – which dog guardians have the right care and skills? Somewhere between very few and none in this author’s experience.

[23] The electric cattle prod was apparently invented by Texas cattle baron Robert J. Kleberg, Jr. of the King Ranch, around 1930, although versions were sold as early as 1917; URL https://search.app/iWzAsiLxpdgfPbEd8

[24] Although one is hesitant to reference an instrument of torture, those interested will soon find it – so: AC STICK™ - Official Site; https://acstick.com

[25] Could possibly have added the question “When did you first notice these sadistic tendencies and have you sought any kind of help? “- but maybe that would be a step too far into provocative territory? Naa!

[26] Lindsay, S. R. (2005) [op. cit.] esp. Ch. 6.

[27] Compares well with the Lindsay (op. cit.) “cynopraxic” training approach.

[28] Discussed more fully in another article on this site [“Training Equipment Used (And Misused) In Dog Training”].

© 2025 Dog Companion Australia

bottom of page