Dog training - use of devices: report

4. Background

In April 2023, SAWC concluded an assessment of the animal welfare impact of the use of handheld remote controlled training devices (e-collar) which at the handler’s instigation discharge an electric pulse on the dog’s neck. Our evidence indicated that such devices represent an unjustifiable animal welfare threat, and that in contrast, positive reinforcement methods are effective and do not compromise dog welfare.

There was inconsistency amongst practitioners regarding how e-collars should be used: the peer reviewed literature described no protocol for e-collar use, and there were significant contradictions regarding how devices were intended to be used and how they were used in practice. In one notable exception, The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association™ (ECMA) created Codes of Practice for the use of Electronic Collars on Dogs and Cats⁸, and technical requirements for Electronic Pet training and Containment Collars⁹. However, these policies are not universally adopted, and some practices described to SAWC by dog trainers contradict ECMA guidance.

In our report² we highlighted that there are both proponents and critics of e-collar use. During evidence gathering, we observed a dichotomy in dog training philosophy and practice, between proponents of reward-based training, who oppose the use of any device deemed aversive i.e., which may have harmful impacts such as pain, fear, stress, and aggression^5,6, and the proponents of balanced training, and others, who utilise a wider spectrum of methods, including positive punishment, and aversive devices.

We observed that a wide variety of other training devices are employed in dog training, and that there are gaps in the evidence comparing efficacy of aversive versus non-aversive training methods. There is also uncertainty regarding the role and liability of veterinary surgeons in referral of dogs to trainers / behaviourists. Many training devices available to dog owners could be used in an aversive manner, working as positive punishment or negative reinforcement. There is therefore a risk that such devices could lead to welfare harms such as suffering and deteriorating behaviour, which may outweigh any potential benefits of their use¹⁰.

The Scottish Government (SG) published ‘Guidance on Dog Training Aids’ in 2018¹¹ which states that causing unnecessary suffering using any type of aversive training aid, including electronic training aids, may be an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. It also states that the SG does not condone aversive devices / training aids including e-collars, electronic anti-bark collars, or any other method used ‘to inflict physical punishment or negative reinforcement’ .

A recent UK based survey¹² reported that 20% of respondents used aversive training devices, with 4% using a choke chain, 3% using a vibrating collar and 2% using a citronella collar. The study’s authors noted that on extrapolation, aversive and negative training methods are used on two million dogs in the UK.

A review of the 2018 SG guidance published in 2021¹ reported that there have been few welfare complaints involving aversive training aids in Scotland¹. Three of the nine enforcement agencies who responded to a SG survey reported complaints involving dog training aids (80 complaints reported over four years), although on investigation none warranted written warning or prosecution.

Finally, dog trainers and behaviourists are not currently regulated, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is undertaking a review of whether, under the terms of a revised Veterinary Surgeons Act, they should be. Currently, there is no Scottish (or UK) organisation that represents the entire dog training community, no industry standard for delineation of roles, or common path to qualification for those practising dog training.