Training equipment used (and misused) in dog training
- Greg Roder
- Dec 23, 2024
- 7 min read
Updated: Jan 19
Overview
Firstly, to be clear, using a leash and collar/harness (of any type) on a dog has an element of limiting the dog’s “agency” (freedom to do what it wants) and can therefore, at the extreme, be regarded as aversive. The salve for this is in two parts (1) return to define exactly what is "aversive" (see under "Article" on this website: Reinforcement vs Punishment: a Dog Trainers Perspective) and how limiting, severe, stressful or painful it is for the dog and (2) in most cases the collar and leash are used to facilitate communication during a safe and enjoyable outing – for the guardian and the dog – so aversive technique advocates should refrain from “Aha – so you admit to using aversives!?”
Secondly, any tool could be used to cause discomfort, stress or pain if misused/abused. The hinge point here is defined by the balance of behavioural ethics of the handler, rather than the tool, although certain tools (such as choke chains, prong collars and electric collars) certainly lend themselves to more likely and more severe abuse than standard flat collars, again recognising that a severe jerk on a flat collar can damage a dog’s trachea, just as jerking a front attaching no-pull harness can damage a dog’s shoulder muscles and severe tugging on a head halter/nose harness is extremely uncomfortable (and frightening) for a dog.
Two concerning issues regarding training equipment – specifically varieties of collars – are addressed
The first is that there is a mildly amusing obfuscation in naming certain tools which are regarded as towards the harmful/extreme end of the aversive spectrum, born out of pretending (one assumes) that they are not really aversive or bad – trying hard to “dodge the bullet”. So, for example, choke chain collars are now referred to as check chain collars; prong collars are called pinch collars; electric shock collars are called stim collars (for stimulation) or e-collars (has a nice, modern, techno ring to it); choking leads (collar and lead combined in one, for maximum leverage, designed like a hangman’s noose) are called slip leads. All sound nicer – but the tricky nomenclature doesn’t change the use nor intent one bit. The real issue is that it is very easy to abuse the force and infliction of damage with each of these instruments and it is questionable why a competent dog trainer needs to consider such tools in the first place[1]. To address this further:
Prong collar: We are told that they allow the trainer to stop the dog pulling on the leash because of the nice little pinch effect giving the trainer leverage, so they don’t need the strength to jerk the dog back and hence it is “kinder and gentler” for the dog (?). Is this dog training or dog abusing? Consider that if time is taken to properly train the dog to walk on a leash (with voice cues), then the pulling, jerking, pinching or prong action would not be in the equation.
Shock collar: We are told it is just used on vibrate (low-end) mode. A mere tickle 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 two views can keep a straight face). Really? So how come the dial goes up to 100+, 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?[2] 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”. An argument is often presented that a shock collar is essential to stop a dog chasing cars or killing livestock. Are there really responsible(?) dog owners today who allow their dogs on a busy street off-leash or free-roaming in livestock areas? Surely the first answer to these challenges lies in management, not punishment? The guardians require sanctioning, not the dogs[3].
Choke chain collar: these collars were de rigueur a decade or two ago as the “go to” collar that delivered control in any circumstance for any dog, obviously in a dominance training environment. We still see these in evidence today, many so thin and fine linked they could be used to cut nice thin slices of cheese. What competent trainer really needs to resort to this sort of action with today’s knowledge about training techniques and the welfare of dogs?
Slip leads and the martingale collar: Many breeds are expert at backing out of a flat collar – principally because of their anatomy - think puppies still in the small head growth phase (and excitedly doing the puppy dance of dashing in four directions at once) or breeds, like Whippets or Italian Greyhounds, with smooth fur and small heads - both reasons that harnesses are functional for such dogs. For these situations (at least for mature dogs rather than puppies – for which a well fitted harness is preferred) is there a justification for a slip lead or martingale (which acts a bit like a choke collar when pulled against)?
Firstly, note that the slip leads commonly used by YouTube and TV dog trainer personalities are super thin (just like a garrotte cord) and we are told they are to be held high on the dog’s neck. My goodness – are these dog trainers or professional dog assassins we are watching? PLEASE - a slip lead (if used at all) absolutely must have two “stop positions”, in place by an adjustable obstruction to the opening and closing of the “noose”. These are indicated in the photo (above) with the bright yellow arrows. One on the outside of the noose stops the lead becoming so loose (without having to keep pressure on the lead) that it falls off the dog and one on the inside to stop the noose tightening beyond what restrains the dog but does not activate the choking (garrotting) action. Also, these lead/collar combinations are not practical if the dog is to be let off leash – obviously another collar with identifying tag is required as well. The major attraction with these unrestrained thin slip leads is that would be TV and YouTube stars can demonstrate dog control in 10 minutes. What actually happens is the dogs they are being used on must think something like “Oh my goodness - I can't breathe - this a#@/*&% is going to strangle me – I am not moving!" Seriously – think about this! Train the dog!
Similarly, a martingale collar should include an adjustment buckle which enables the collar to fit snugly (not uncomfortably) on the dog when “loose”, and when pulled closed, the collar only tightens to a firm hold position, not a choking action. This adjustment buckle is shown in the photo (above) by the white arrow.
The second issue is that “science” is misused to analyse the effects of different types of collars, in particular to try to determine what is most effective and most/least aversive/punitive. The problem with these studies is that the researchers need to better collaborate with competent, qualified dog trainers who properly understand what a training tool or aid – in this case, a dog’s collar - actually is used for and how it might properly, or improperly, be used in training. An unfortunate example of this so-called science was recently published under the guise of comparing the efficacy in reducing pulling and welfare impacts of four types of leash walking equipment[4]. The problems with this analysis are many, but in particular the approach (a) ignores dog training knowledge and appropriate ethical animal management protocols and (b) infers that the challenge of dog leash pulling is properly addressed by equipment, rather than dog training technique. This is not to say that articles of this nature contribute nothing to the knowledge pool, but proper collaboration across disciplines could have added so much more to the findings and conclusions.
Conclusion
The tool, be it collar, harness or leash, does not teach the dog to do anything. It is surprising that this needs to be explained, but time and again the first remedy many trainers reach for is a new tool – usually one which they regard will inflict more “discipline” on the dog.
The trainer does the teaching, not the tool.
As an example, we often hear that harnesses are bad because they are designed for pulling and teach a dog to pull – like a Huskie mushing in the snow. So, then logically, we can slap a harness on any dog (perhaps a Chihuahua, Boston Terrier or Great Dane) hook them up to a sled and off they will go, because the harness will teach them to pull? Nope.
Further, there are many different harnesses designed for purposes for which the dog is trained – sled/carting harness; water rescue harness; tracking harness; loose lead walking harness; safety car harness; tactical (military/police) harness; cross-country back-pack harness, etc. Each of these must be coupled with appropriate conditioning and training. The harness type does not automatically teach the dog to pull, rescue a drowning person back to a boat or shore, track a miscreant, or sit quietly in the back seat of a car with its “seat belt” on. It bears repeating, no tool teaches a dog what to do, the trainer teaches the dog – assuming they know how.
The question to ask is, “do the dog trainers who resort to extreme aversive tools and techniques actually know how to train a dog for the long haul, or just how to get social media coverage through the sensationalism of the “10-minute cure” – at the expense of a dog’s wellbeing?” And then, “after the remedy is applied, how does the dog look – what is its body language – and is the remedy long term implanted in a manageable, confident and stable dog?”
References
[1] Could there be a mature dog which has been able (or provoked) to form such bad behaviours that the decision is to consider either “behavioural euthanasia” or application of techniques to curb that behaviour – i.e. the use of aversives? Certainly – but one hopes that the behavioural change options fully consider reprogramming through a combination of classical and operant conditioning to reorient such a dog’s mind-set. Not saying its easy!
[3] 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: 2nd Ed.: Cambridge University Press; 416pp: discusses the ineffectiveness of these applications with reference to relevant publications at p.222.
[4] Johnson, A. C. and Wynne, C. D. L. (2024) Comparing the efficacy in reducing pulling and welfare impacts of four types of leash walking equipment; Peer J., 12: e 18131 DOI 10.7717/peerj.18131.