Understanding the Role of E-Collars in Dog Training: Insights from a 2024 Study
The use of electronic collars (e-collars) in dog training has been a topic of heated debate, with some advocating for their effectiveness while others raise concerns about animal welfare. Misleading research, often failing to account for proper usage, risks discrediting e-collars altogether. A 2024 study by Anamarie Johnson and Clive Wynne provides a critical perspective on this issue, offering evidence that e-collars can be effective when applied correctly by skilled trainers.
The full study is available for download below, but here we list a summary and the study's significance:
The Study's Objective
The study aimed to compare the effectiveness and welfare outcomes of e-collars versus purely positive reinforcement methods in stopping chasing behavior, a common but dangerous issue in dogs. Chasing behaviors can pose significant risks, such as a dog running into traffic or harming wildlife. This makes the ability to stop these behaviors essential, and the debate about the most efficient and humane methods to do so is particularly relevant.
Johnson and Wynne's study used a controlled environment to examine how well e-collars and food reward methods curbed the chasing of a fast-moving lure. Dogs were divided into three groups:
- Group A used e-collars.
- Group B used food rewards, with the lure moving at full speed.
- Group C also used food rewards, but the lure started slow and increased in speed over time.
The results provide crucial insights into the efficacy and welfare implications of these training methods.
Key Findings: E-Collars Versus Positive Reinforcement
The results were clear: dogs trained with e-collars ceased chasing the lure after just two training sessions, and they refrained from chasing during subsequent tests. In contrast, the dogs trained with food rewards, whether the lure started slow or fast, failed to stop chasing it across all training and test sessions.
What makes this study particularly important is the attention to welfare outcomes. While some dogs in the e-collar group did yelp in response to the shock, these vocalizations were the only immediate signs of distress. Other behavioral indicators of stress, such as tail tucking or avoidance behaviors, were absent. Furthermore, there were no long-term signs of stress, and none of the groups exhibited significant changes in cortisol levels, a key marker of stress.
The Importance of Expertise
The study emphasizes that the effectiveness of e-collars depends largely on the expertise of the trainer. A significant issue in many studies that criticize e-collars is that they often fail to control for variables such as the trainer’s skill level, the shock intensity, and the timing of corrections. In this study, the trainers were experienced and carefully monitored the use of the e-collars, adjusting the intensity as needed. The dogs were never exposed to higher-than-necessary shock levels, minimizing the potential for harm.
This distinction is critical. When poorly handled, e-collars can indeed result in welfare issues. However, as the study illustrates, in the hands of an expert, e-collars can be a humane and highly effective tool for modifying dangerous behaviors like chasing.
Addressing the Broader Debate
This study comes at a time when there is a growing effort to ban e-collars in some countries, fueled by research that often paints these tools in a negative light. However, the findings by Johnson and Wynne highlight the dangers of using poorly designed studies to inform such bans. For instance, some previous studies have criticized e-collars for causing stress but failed to clarify how the tools were used or whether the trainers were adequately skilled.
The 2024 study points out that many of these criticisms lack context and may overlook the practical benefits of e-collars. For example, non-aversive training methods, while excellent for many scenarios, often take significantly more time to achieve results. When dealing with high-risk behaviors like chasing, especially in emergency situations, speed and reliability are critical, e-collars offer trainers the ability to correct behavior from a distance and with immediate results, which can be life-saving for the dog.
A Balanced Approach to Dog Training
The take-home message from this study is that e-collars, when used responsibly and by experienced professionals, are an effective and humane tool for stopping problematic behaviors. While positive reinforcement remains standard for many types of training, e-collars should not be dismissed outright, especially when addressing behaviors that put the dog or others at risk.
Instead, trainers and dog owners should focus on ensuring that whichever method they choose, it is applied correctly and humanely. This study reinforces the importance of expert training in using aversive tools like e-collars and highlights the need for further research to refine best practices in dog training.
By acknowledging the nuances of dog behavior and the role that e-collars can play, trainers can better serve their canine clients and protect them from harm, while still ensuring their welfare is safeguarded.
Conclusion
The 2024 study by Johnson and Wynne provides a balanced, research-backed view of e-collars, illustrating their efficacy in controlling high-risk behaviors such as chasing, without compromising the welfare of the dog. In the ongoing debate surrounding dog training methods, it’s critical that decisions are based on thorough and well-conducted research rather than emotional responses to poorly designed studies. For professional dog trainers, understanding the proper use of all tools, including e-collars, is key to developing a well-rounded approach to canine behavior modification.
Citation: Johnson, A.C., & Wynne, C.D.L. (2024). Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs. Animals, 14(2632). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632
Download below:
Hot off the press
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Unfortunately for me, like with the experiments presented as evidence from the purely positive force-free community; this experiment does not show true correlation much less causality for using the e-collar. The lack of scientific method, clear experimental design, statistical data, and analysis presentation, lack of clear sample size and variety, account for or discovery of confounding variables, cumulative record during training sessions, clear methods in precise use each of the tools for each group (I can keep going but won’t} makes it lacking in scientific validity or integrity. The whole point of an experiment is that it can be replicated. Neither one of these can and never will. Unfortunately, until we get trainers who are true scientists or scientists who are knowledgeable trainers this topic will always remain subjective, anecdotal, and lacking in the ability to make valid empirical statements. My dad would always ask me these questions when I said I did or got the dog to do or not do something. He would ask, “Are you sure?” “Can you do it again? 10 more times? Under the same conditions and get the exact same results?” It used to drive me BONKERS! I would scream in frustration. But now, I ask the exact same questions. I am and will forever be my fathers’ daughter and though this is probably not what people want to hear, we can’t accept this as showing a causal relationship between the efficacy of the e-collar vs the other methods. Not if we are to look at this through a truly objective and scientific lens. It’s not about what we know from experience, it’s what we can prove. Proper experimental design, the collection of clear and concise data so that it can be properly analyzed and then the results be replicable, when those exist for either side maybe then one can declare victory. Again, sorry to offend anyone that is not my intent. My brain works differently than most. I am just as critical of myself in everything I do or say.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I like that this study addresses many of its own shortcomings and is quite transparent and even includes a way to gain more access to the data. In reality, it is difficult to have a rock solid study about dog training “methods” unless dogs of pure genetics, raised like lab rats under the same conditions are trained in skinner box-like conditions.
I personally took it at face value and it checks my personal “valid enough” criteria compared to some studies that clearly seem to mislead or do not make sense. It makes sense to me, especially when comparing to more controlled studies with rats, that a high-level shock contingent on a basic avoidance conditioning plan would be more effective than differential reinforcement plan. That is basically what it tried to demonstrate in a way that had far less variables than the UK study.
The discussion about welfare and perspective I also find important especially when the UK studies truly go out in left-field with their claims.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
I like it, much better than previous UK attempt.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here