Dog training - use of devices: report

5. Evidence Gathered

In keeping with SAWC ways of working¹³, the SAWC Dog Training working group approached relevant stakeholders for their views regarding the use of dog training devices. A literature review was undertaken, and the outcomes of these investigations, and associated conclusions and recommendations are presented in this report.

Questionnaire regarding dog training devices

In August 2023 emails were sent to potential contributors, explaining that SAWC were keen to understand how and when training devices are used, and that ‘such devices may include sonic collar, spray collar, automatic electronic collar, vibrate collar, prong collar, and choke collars’. Respondents were invited to list additional devices used. The Questionnaire is shown at Table 1, below.

Q1	Which training devices do you use in training, and are they used for specific purposes?
Q2	If more than one device used, are they used in a specific order?
Q3	What behavioural challenges are the devices used for?
Q4	What range of training methods are used before these devices are used? Is this always the case?
Q5	How do you assess that use of a device is necessary, and when / if it is no longer necessary?
Q6	Do veterinary surgeons refer behavioural cases to you for use of these devices?
Q7	Describe how the devices are used, including frequency of use, duration etc.
Q8	On what proportion of dogs that you work with are the devices used? How many dogs do you work with annually?
Q9	Do these devices have any adverse effects on dogs?
Q10	Any additional comments?

Table 1: Questionnaire regarding the use of devices in the training of dogs, other than handheld remote-controlled electronic devices (e-collars)

In response, SAWC received replies to the questionnaire from the Animal Behaviour & Training Council (ABTC), Association of Responsible Dog Owners (ARDO), Dogs Trust, British Veterinary Association (BVA) and British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), Deaf Dog Network, The Kennel Club, OneKind, Scottish SPCA, The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association™ (ECMA), and dog trainers Aaron O’Brien, Patricia Bowerbank, Lez Graham, Jamie Penrith, and Val Harvey.

Six replies were received from respondents who did not complete the questionnaire, these are summarised below. Full submissions are available on request to the SAWC secretariat.

1. Animal Behaviour & Training Council (ABTC)

The ABTC response does not directly address the list of devices, but rather focusses on the effect of Positive Punishment, on which principle the use of aversive devices is based. ABTC lists the risk to animal welfare of Positive Punishment, and state that the same training goals for which trainers argue that aversive devices are justified can be reached using Positive Reinforcement.

ABTC believe that even in ‘emergency situations’, punishment is not justifiable, and that those who support aversive training are basing their arguments on poor knowledge and understanding of training and the use of alternative methods. ABTC state that ‘The use of pain in training is both ethically unacceptable and potentially an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, as causes unnecessary suffering’.

2. British Veterinary Association (BVA), and British Small Animal Veterinary (BSAVA)

BVA and BSAVA stated that in their view “behaviourists are best placed to complete the questionnaire.”

3. The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association™ (ECMA)

Declined to submit a response.

4. The Kennel Club (KC) (summary from submission)

The Kennel Club have two training programmes, the Good Citizen Dog Scheme (GCDS), and the Kennel Club Accredited Instructors (KCAI) programme. Of these, GCDS clubs do not use any aversive devices, and KCAI members sign to abide by the KCAI code, which states not to use ‘electric shock collars, similar coercive electric equipment, including pinch or prong collars and not to promote any aversive training methods’. The Kennel Club states that KCAI promote the use of suitable training methods consistent with principles of kindness, fairness and good welfare, but do not provide a specific definition of aversive techniques beyond this. Given this position, KC are not “in a position to answer the questions specifically”.

5. Scottish SPCA (extract from submission)

“The Scottish SPCA does not use any of the listed aversive training methods on dogs in its care. The Scottish SPCA has long advocated for positive reinforcement-based training for dogs. Positive reinforcement methods can help consolidate a bond between dog and owner which protects the human-animal bond and ensures that a dog is being trained in a way that does not negatively impact their health. The Scottish SPCA supports positive reinforcement training methods and aids. Positive reinforcement is where an animal is rewarded for displaying desirable behaviours. This type of reinforcement does not cause physical or mental pain, stress or suffering. Evidence shows that dogs respond well to reward-based training, which helps to build the human-animal bond between dog and owner, helps build confidence, and owners that train using positive rewards report fewer behavioural problems.

We discourage any training methods or aids that cause dogs to suffer. The Scottish SPCA does not support any form of punishment training or negative reinforcement, which is removal of an unpleasant stimulus when the desired behaviour is displayed. This includes electric collars, spray collars and choke chains. These aids can cause dogs immediate pain and/or distress but can also lead to long-term fear and anxiety if they are used for prolonged periods.

The misuse of any training device or accessory can cause discomfort or harm. If an animal is caused unnecessary suffering, then the Scottish SPCA is empowered to investigate.”

6. OneKind (extract from submission)

“The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) report on the use of e-collars discusses the considerations in reaching its conclusion that the use of e-collars should be prohibited. Many of these considerations apply equally to other aversive collars and devices. Some points from that report which seem particularly salient are:

• “Effectiveness is not the only measure by which a training intervention should be measured, and that 'if we make effectiveness the only criterion by which we determine the appropriateness of an intervention, we risk failing to consider some other ethical objectives'”
• Aversive training can result in negative mental states including fear, distress, anxiety, aggression, long term negative moods, and pessimistic cognitive bias.

The e-collar report helpfully outlines the four quadrants of operant training, a key aspect of learning theory and animal training. Operant conditioning uses reinforcement and punishment to modify behaviour, often very effectively if the trainer is skilled. However, animal behaviourists, and some trainers, understand that it is crucial to consider the animal’s emotions, not only their behaviour. Dogs who are, for example, anxious, fearful, phobic, or frustrated need help to overcome those negative affective states, not simply to behave differently. This may include techniques that fall outside of operant conditioning.

Not only are aversive training devices generally unable to help dogs overcome negative emotions, but they can also cause them, as summarised in the SAWC report. A trust-based relationship, not only behaviour modification, should be the foundation of any animal training, and that requires time, patience, and non-coercive methods. For these reasons, we recommend that all aversive collars and training devices should be banned.”

Summarised questionnaire responses

References to handheld remote controlled (e-collar / shock) training devices are noted, but not included, being beyond the scope of this report. Where the e-collar vibrate mode is referenced, these responses have been included.

Questionnaire

Q1. Which training devices do you use in training, and are they used for specific purposes?

• Aaron O’Brien. Uses combination of harnesses, Herm Spregner prong collar and Dogtra 1200s remote electronic collar (with both shock and vibrate function). The harness is essential where significant leash pressure is involved, and the prong collar used in own dog for daily walks. Only remote electronic training devices with vibration functions provide the variety of communication, and ability to select stimulation strength, to be effective.
• Association of Responsible Dog Owners (ARDO), by Jamie Penrith. Training devices, including aversive interventions ‘elicit and encourage’ healthy behaviours. Animal’s ability to respond to aversive experiences enables maintenance of safety and wellbeing.
• Dogs Trust. Of devices listed, only one used is vibrate collar, for deaf dogs – introduced appropriately. Also use Clickers, Target sticks, Harnesses, Training leads, Head collars and muzzles. Other than the clicker and target sticks/items the equipment listed is largely to help with management of behaviour rather than specifically training a new behaviour.
• Lez Graham. Uses variety of devices in addition to those mentioned in questionnaire. Dog training discs in relation to aggressive behaviour or deeply engrained inappropriate behaviour – lunging at dogs/people. Slip lead, Split half check and Gencon clip to collar – all for loose lead walking training.
• Patricia Bowerbank. Listed several devices including vibrate collar (used to gain dogs attention although will not prevent dogs running off), prong collar (used for very strong dogs that pull), French collar (used for directional training), Figure of 8 headcollar (used for some pulling dogs), also harness, slip lead, long line, flex leash, Clicker, whistle, and flat collar. Citronella collars are never used or recommended as the spray is disruptive and can be damaging. Prong collar not used in aggressive dogs.

Summary. A wide range of devices are used by respondents for a range of purposes, including and in addition to those listed in the SAWC working group questionnaire.

Q2. If more than one device used, are they used in a specific order? What evidence is used to decide to move from one device to another (i.e. what sort of time scale is used to determine if something is working or not, or what behavioural response might suggest changing to a different device)?

• Aaron O’Brien. Tools are introduced because of the accountability and clarity of communication they provide, allowing the removal of many of the controls of the training environment, and access to much more freedom, because of the added safety they provide. A dog with no ‘issues’ would be trained without tools, in a controlled environment, and then progressed onto the devices.
• ARDO. There is no pre-formed, prescribed process. The animal determines what, when, how, if and why. That process is organic and fluid. The trainer possesses an understanding and ‘a feel for the animal’ based on years of experience of trial and error and a sound (often un-learned) understanding of the species and assessing the individual animal without the need to ever consider ‘timescales’, or orders of interventions.
• Dogs Trust. Of the devices listed, only the head collar might initially be used to aid safety in very strong dogs.
• Lez Graham. For loose lead walking – slip first or half check then Gencon head collar.
• Patricia Bowerbank. Assessment can take 4 hours or more to assess over a period of a week, if there is no progress in that time with the owner working with the dog then it’s time to look at additional aids. If a dog has no or very little connection/shared communication with the owner, the remote electronic training device training may be started after the assessment with collar and lead.

Summary. Some trainers use more explicitly structured approaches than others.

Q3. What behavioural challenges are the devices used for?

• Aaron O’Brien. A quality prong collar, properly fitted and positioned, can address issues almost entirely within a single hour’s session with a competent trainer, that may otherwise take weeks which may not be available if the dog is otherwise unable to go outside, is likely to be relinquished, or the owner cannot afford repeated training sessions. The owner/guardian should be trained to avoid ‘yanking and choking the leash’. Remote electronic training devices are the only method available whatsoever that can hold a dog accountable off-leash.
• ARDO. Devices are utilised not only in terms of reducing or suppressing “challenging” behaviours through positive punishment. Any training devices (or any intentional aversive interventions) are included for a specific purpose; to elicit maintain and encourage healthy behaviours and associations; or to prevent, reduce or permanently suppress undesirable behaviours and harmful or improper associations.
• Dogs Trust. The majority of the above are used to stop a behaviour and by definition potentially punishing an undesirable behaviour. This is why we do not advocate the use of punishment-based equipment.
• Patricia Bowerbank. Listed uses of remote electronic training devices. Prong collars are used where owners may be dragged or pulled off their feet.

Summary. Although numerous behavioural challenges were mentioned in the responses, lead pulling was the most prevalent behavioural challenge for which aversive devices were used.

Q4. What are the risks to the dogs/others if a device is not used for a particular behavioural challenge?

• Aaron O’Brien. Remote Collar If the dog does not have an e-collar, then we can only rely on prior training and commands to communicate. If the dog decides to reject a command (for example the recall) or is so distracted as to be experiencing sensory-exclusion, then there is nothing you can do.
• ARDO. We live in a world where causing a dog to experience negative consequences (however momentary) for life threatening behaviours is deemed more of a threat to the welfare of animals than sentencing that dog to lifelong restraint, sterile exercise opportunities, social isolation or destruction.
• Dogs Trust. The use of aversive equipment may increase the fear and pain of an individual that already associates the stimulus with something to avoid e.g. if a dog is fearful of other dogs and barks and growls at other dogs then using a choke chain to “correct” this behaviour is likely to increase fear, add pain to the already tense situation and at best supress behaviour.
• Lez Graham. People and dogs could get bitten, owner could be pulled over, dog could end up being rehomed, dog could be euthanised.
• Patricia Bowerbank. The risk of not addressing behavioural issues are multiple, including risks to the dog, e.g., death through euthanasia, being hit by car, and rehoming, to people, risks include dog attack, and injury through road traffic accidents, and risks to other animals include death through predation, dog fights etc.

Summary. Responses were divided between these who believe there are welfare risks to dogs and others from the use of aversive training devices (e.g. to owners and members of the public) and those who believe there are welfare risks to dogs and other from not using aversive training devices.

Q5. What range of training methods are used before these devices are used? Is this always the case?

• Aaron O’Brien. It is important we use these tools as part of a wider training strategy, calling on all of the best understanding we have in the modern dog training world.
• ARDO. The individual dog and the unique contextual impact factors determine the range of training methods used. In some instances, where the behaviour or associations held by the dog represent a clear and serious or proven threat to the dog or some third-party innocent, then training collars or aversive interventions are required immediately.
• Dogs Trust. Do not use the aversive methods and focus on understanding the motivation for a behaviour and the emotion behind the behaviour before creating a plan to desensitise and counter condition the stimulus that creates the undesirable behaviour.
• Lez Graham. Is determined case-by-case.
• Patricia Bowerbank. Every dog will have a slight variation in developing connection to make the handler relevant to them, but training methods may include marker work, teaching threshold, puppy games, place work etc.

Summary. There is general agreement that the use of training devices should be contextualised and adapted to each individual animal and owner.

Q6. How do you assess that use of a device is necessary, and when/if it is no longer necessary?

• Aaron O’Brien. Using the devices mentioned above, once the dog has understood that you can enforce important commands, they usually quickly stop the offending behaviour. You can have these devices on but very rarely use them, if ever.
• ARDO. A full assessment of the individual dog pre, during and post training together with the individual needs and potential limitations of the owner determine the answers to both parts of this question.
• Dogs Trust. Training and behaviour staff continually assess the behavioural needs of dogs in their care.
• Lez Graham. The owner is trained in the use of the equipment, a plan is discussed and implemented as required for the dog. It is a case-by-case situation and as the owner is living with the dog and responsible for the dog, it is up to them, following the consult or in consultation, as to when they stop using the recommended equipment.
• Patricia Bowerbank. The device will be used if the dog constantly lacks attention. When the extreme behaviour stops, or the dog pays attention to the owner, the device will no longer be required.

Summary. Many respondents comment that devices are no longer used once the owner has the desired results, which is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Q7. Do veterinary surgeons refer behavioural cases to you for use of these devices?

• Aaron O’Brien. Not yet.
• ARDO. Yes, often for prong and spray collars, and remote electronic training device use.
• Dogs Trust. Do not use these devices but do seek veterinary support.
• Lez Graham. No, not for use of these devices, but do refer behavioural cases.
• Patricia Bowerbank. Yes.

Summary. In some cases, dogs are referred to trainers by veterinary surgeons.

Q8. Describe how the devices are used, including frequency of use, duration etc.

• Aaron O’Brien. Prong is worn for any short-leash work. It may stay on for a few hours and is regularly checked to ensure it is lying comfortably. The prong will be worn with the leash, and when the leash comes off, the prong comes off. Prongs lie fairly loose when worn, only cinching when pressure is applied. Harness is worn during work only. It may stay on for most of the working day. The dog is used to the idea that the harness means work, or some serious training will be about to happen. Remote electronic training device is worn during any off-leash activity.
• ARDO. Each device can be used to punish or to reinforce behaviours, to strengthen or weaken behaviour depending on how they are utilised.
• Dogs Trust. Do not use aversive devices.
• Lez Graham. Dogs are conditioned to training discs using classical conditioning.
• Patricia Bowerbank. Vibrate collar effective only on low drive dogs with slight attention issues. Not used on deaf dogs as not as subtle as the blunt stimulation of the remote electronic training device. Prong Collar – walk the dog in straight line, slowly turn and squeeze the leash (as you would a stress ball). The dog feels the gentle universal pressure and will turn into it. Some dogs only require the collar for around a week before learning to walk beside their owner. French collar used for dogs that will be off leash and under good control within any environment. Harness used for development of pulling for work or sport purposes or tracking scent work, the harness will be loose fitting initially, soft (padded) and specifically made to support that particular dog’s pressure points. This work is specific and carried out for short periods. Figure of 8 headcollar – similar to training with the prong but can take longer for the owner to learn how to use and dog to accept. Used longer term. Slip leash – allows sensitivity to squeezing of the leash aiding learning of pressure and release to help with walking by the owner’s side.

Summary. Several aversive training devices are used, in a variety of ways to aid address several unwanted behaviours. Prevention of dogs pulling on the lead was a frequently referenced unwanted behaviour.

Q9. On what proportion of dogs that you work with are the devices used? How many dogs do you work with annually?

• Aaron O’Brien. I would condition and use an e-collar on any dog which is to be off-leash. How it's used would be specific to each dog, just as is the case with how we use a leash, or harness, or bed etc. Typically, I will handle only a few dogs in a year.
• ARDO. Represents thousands of individuals, hundreds of which work with hundreds of dogs annually in a full-time, professional capacity. The Association does not subscribe to prohibiting the use of any device, provided that the use is in line with their mission statement.
• Dogs Trust. Devices are not used on any dog.
• Lez Graham. No response.
• Patricia Bowerbank. Around 90% of the dogs I work with use remote electronic training devices, 30% use prong collars, 99% use slip leads. Works with around 150 dogs annually on a board and train basis, there are additional dogs receiving sessional work.

Summary. Trainers who use aversive devices do so on the majority of dogs worked with.

Q10. Do these devices have any adverse effects on dogs.

• Aaron O’Brien. Adverse effects as a result of misuse of these tools, is comparable to misuse of any other training tool (such as a leash). The likelihood of adverse effects is, I suspect, correlated with handler skill. For example, the handler who yanks on a prong collar, will also do so with a flat collar.
• ARDO. Multiple devices and practices that are commonly applied may cause adverse effects on dogs, including, Elizabethan collars, dog crates, head harnesses, slip leads, catch poles, commercial kennels, and muzzles. Treats given during positive reinforcement dog training may be linked to obesity, the greatest threat to canine welfare. Research by Salgirli et al, that a verbal ‘quitting signal’ induced greater stress in the dogs studied – and therefore had a greater adverse effect than either the e-collar or the prong collar.
• Dogs Trust. As detailed above the use of aversive equipment can lead to increase in aggression, suppression of behaviour leading to what is often cited as out of the blue behaviour (spontaneous recovery). Increased fear and anxiety have been reported in dogs that are exposed to the use of equipment that are designed to stop behaviour rather than addressing the underlying emotion and motivation for a behaviour.
• Lez Graham. Like every other piece of equipment, if it is conditioned incorrectly, it will have an adverse effect on the dog – it is not the tool it is the hands that are using them.
• Patricia Bowerbank. I have never experienced any adverse effects on dogs from any of these devises. I have been working with dogs for 33 years.

Summary. Both users and opponents of aversive devices recognise that improper use of aversive devices may result in welfare harms.

Respondents’ additional comments/covering notes

• Aaron O’Brien. “Targeting tool use doesn't address welfare use. And an argument of 'what if someone doesn't do it right' isn't an argument against the tool, but the person. The issue is education - there is no system of trainer accreditation. You don't need to know basic dog safety, care or training methods before buying a dog. The issue is also welfare - Anybody can buy a dog without any checks or regulations.”
• ARDO. Definition of ‘aversive. “The request from SAWC lacks any definition when it comes to the term ‘aversive’. In our answers, we deliberately avoid referring to the term aversive as per the everyday Oxford Dictionary definition – “A strong feeling of not liking something.” It is of course, not possible to know with certainty the ‘strength of feelings’ (liking or disliking) of a non-communicative animal which lacks the capacity to self-report regarding its ‘internal environment’. Following such a rabbit hole opens the door to personal opinions, unknowable/unproveable presumptions and conclusions tainted with bias. In order to maintain accuracy and integrity, we use the term as per its commonly accepted meaning in behavioural psychology: “Any stimulus or occurrence that evokes avoidance or escape behaviour [in the recipient]” “The aversive nature of a given stimulus (device) is determined not by the stimulus itself, but by the animal’s perception of it. Consequently, if we are also being asked to consider ‘aversive training methods’, then any such list would extend well beyond a mechanical device to include the individual characteristics of the person responsible for the animal at any given time, and indeed the environments to which the animal is exposed (or not) and the manner in which such exposure is conducted.”
• Patricia Bowerbank. “All the training mentioned is evidence based, every aspect has been videoed showing the work.”

Literature Review

It has been reported that in the UK there has been an increase in dog behavioural issues in the last two years, and 8% of dog owners in a recent survey had used a dog trainer or behaviourist (although the reasons for this were not presented)¹¹ ).

The majority of aversive devices are used to reduce/prevent unwanted behaviour such as lead pulling or barking/howling. With these devices readily available to the public from both online and high street retailers it is likely that some dog owners are using aversive training tools without consulting a veterinary or dog training professional.

The theory behind use of aversive training devices

Reviewing the theory behind the use of aversive-based training methods on dogs, Vieira de Castro¹⁰ observed that animals can learn from exposure to aversive stimuli (negative reinforcement and positive punishment), and that this process teaches animals to avoid and escape from dangerous or harmful situations. In relation to dog training, the use of aversive-based techniques has been based on selective interpretation of early observations of wolf behaviour, and a resultant conviction that wolves are rigidly hierarchical pack animals, and that their behaviour is driven by a desire to be dominant or the ‘alpha’ in the pack¹⁰. Studies by Schenkel¹⁴ form the foundation of this dominance theory, which was based on the behaviour of captive wolves. Dominance is a well-studied behaviour, however, Schenkelunderlined that in their natural state, wolves exhibit more nuanced social behaviours, which may include but do not depend only on dominance behaviour. Wild wolf behaviour is aligned to reproductive and seasonal cycles and is indicative of a nuclear family group; at times competitive, cooperative, or exclusive¹⁴.

Dominance model and dog training

During the last century, referencing work by Schenkel¹⁴ and others, a widespread view developed that as members of the ‘pack’, humans must be hierarchically dominant over dogs in order to prevent disobedience and aggression¹⁰. Owners applying dominance theory may use confrontational and coercive methods within their training regime, including; placing dogs on their back, pinning them to the ground, and challenging dogs over their right to food and resources¹⁵.

However, by application of this theory, observers may fail to respond appropriately to behaviours – when dogs do display assertive, dominant behaviour this may result from anxiety or insecurity for a multitude of reasons. Unwanted behaviour may have various root causes, and thus various remedies, for example the dog may lack training and/or social skills¹⁶. In this way, practical application of the dominance model in dog training, may exacerbate aggressive or fearful behaviours^,17,18,19, may negatively impact the dogs’ bond with humans¹⁹ (, and can pose serious dog welfare problems²⁰ Training techniques based on the dominance model of dog training can be ineffective and dangerous²¹.

General impacts of aversive training methods

A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted in 2017 by Guilherme Fernandes⁵ with the aim of assessing the effect of aversive and reward-based training on the welfare and behaviour of dogs. The study concluded that aversive-based methods generate stress in dogs, however the authors acknowledge that some of the studies included in the review had a number of limitations including reliance on survey data, using police/laboratory dogs rather than the pet population and focusing on the e-collar. Ziv⁶ came to similar conclusions when reviewing the literature, outlining that the use of aversive training methods can negatively impact the physical and mental health of dogs and are no more effective than positive reinforcement–based training.

More recent work also suggests that companion dogs trained with aversive-based methods (including prong collars, e-collars and choke chains) experience poorer welfare both during and outside the training context compared to dogs trained with positive reinforcement¹⁰. Another study has shown that dogs trained without the use of punishment-based techniques had a lower number of potentially undesirable behaviours, and that aversive training methods may lead to a more negative mood state in dogs²² 0). Furthermore, a report by Makowska and Cavalli²³ included results from 11 studies comparing reward-based and aversive-based methods and concluded that aversive-based techniques led to more stress related behaviours, aggression and other behavioural problems compared to reward-based techniques.

There is still some debate as to whether reward-based training is equally, or more effective than training that includes aversive methods. A recent online client survey found that owners believed that reward-based training and balanced training were equally effective²⁴ . Other studies have directly compared the efficacy of aversive and reward methods in dogs, with mixed results. Among these, five studies suggest a higher efficacy of reward-based methods^25-29whereas one points in the opposite direction³⁰, and one showed no differences between methods³¹.

Some studies referenced included aversive methods or devices, such as shouting at dogs, use of a pet corrector, smacking dogs, use of water pistol or rattle can, which were not included in our questionnaire to trainers. Care needs to be taken in extrapolating aversive study results to all other aversive training tools.

Bark activated shock/spray/sonic collars.

A number of empirical studies have investigated the efficacy and/or welfare outcomes of bark control collars on domestic dogs with mixed results.

In one study, two types of anti-bark collars – electronic shock and lemon-scented spray collar (that did not contain citronella) were compared to each other and to an inactive control collar³². The authors observed that both the electronic and lemon spray bark collars significantly reduced barking. The findings should be treated with caution as the number of dogs used in this study were small (seven or eight dogs per group), and larger study groups would have made the results more powerful (i.e. more reliable). The study was funded by the manufacturer of the electronic shock collar used in the study.

An older study also compared the efficacy of a citronella spray collar and an electronic shock collar in reducing barking. A decrease in barking was reported by 25% of the owners when their dog wore the shock collar compared to 78% when their dog wore the citronella spray collar. Some owners reported vocalisation in response to use of the shock collar, suggesting a pain response. Again only a small number of dogs (nine) were included in the study³³.

A larger study population (41 dogs) was used to compare citronella and scentless anti-bark spray collars in which it was found that initial applications of both collars significantly reduced barking, and that the collars did not have an impact on measured anxiety levels³⁴.

More recent work which included seven dogs found that a citronella anti-bark collar was ineffective in reducing problem barking for four of the dogs. Furthermore the authors of this study commented that during the exposure to the citronella collar dogs commonly froze (i.e. stood still), shook their heads, sneezed, and jumped backwards, with one dog showing a more severe distress reaction, hiding and trembling³⁵.

Finally, a study assessing the effectiveness of citronella anti-bark collar in thirty dogs over a three week period found that all dogs initially reduced their rate of barking, however barking increased again over the study period³⁶.

The use of anti-bark collars has been included in survey-based studies. In a survey of dogs with aggression, it was found that the use of anti-bark collars (the specific type of anti-bark collar was not specified) decreased the probability for successful treatment of aggression. However only a very small subset (1.8%) of the dogs included in the survey had experience of anti-bark collars³⁷ (.

In a French survey 11.9% of dog owners reported the use of anti-bark collars (again, the type of anti-bark collar was not specified). Over 10% of owners who used anti-bark collars reported that their dog had received physical injuries (burns), 21.5% of owners reported that their dog was stressed wearing the collar, whilst 31.5% reported that their dog was calmer, 7% of dogs presented with physical wounds (26). The authors concluded that whilst all e-collars were less effective and more injurious in ‘real-life’ situations compared to idealised study conditions, bark-activated collars appeared to be the least efficient and the most injurious type, and called for urgent regulation of e-collars in France³⁸.

Vibrate Collars

The published literature around vibration collars is limited, what is published mostly describes the use of vibration collars on deaf dogs, for which they are reportedly useful for recall or ‘look at me’ commands^39,40. However it is described that the collars must be introduced carefully and on an individual basis as some dogs find them worryin^g39.

Prong collars and choke chains

Published literature regarding the use of prong collars and choke chains is also limited.

One study compared the use of a prong collar, electric collar, and a verbal signal for correcting disobedient behaviour in 42 police dogs⁴¹. It was reported that the prong collar and electric collar produced significantly better learning effects than the verbal signal (however the dogs in this study were previously familiar with the collars whilst the verbal signal was novel). Regarding behaviour responses, the prong collar was deemed to be the most stressful of the methods used, however the verbal signal resulted in the greatest increase in salivary cortisol levels⁴¹(.

Owners who use prong collars and choke chains report lower satisfaction with their dog’s overall behaviour, and lead-walking behaviour compared to owners who do not use these collars⁴². However, as noted by Townsend⁴³ , less satisfied owners may be more inclined to use prong collars/choke chains in the first instance. A study that examined obedience training effects on search dogs stated that canine reactions to the use of choke chains and prong collars (as well as head halters and electronic collars) indicate that the dogs experienced pain⁴⁴ (, however the authors do not present any evidence to support this claim.

The risk of physical injury from a prong collar or choke chain is significant⁴⁵. A smaller contact area with the dog’s neck concentrates pressure and force, and in the case of choke chains this pressure is exerted on the middle of the neck⁴⁶ increasing the potential for damage to the nerves, skin⁴⁷ , salivary glands⁴⁸ (, larynx, oesophagus, thyroid, trachea⁴⁹ and muscles⁵⁰ Incidences of neck injuries and infections due to tight choke chains have been reported in the UK⁵¹. The death of a dog due to choke chain use was reported in 2013 where the owner suspended the animal by the choke chain during training for approximately 60 seconds⁵².

Policy, Guidance and Legislation on training devices

A number of organisations and governing bodies have produced guidance and policy on the use of aversive methods in dog training.

The Scottish Government Guidance on Dog Training Aids states: the most effective method of training dogs is reward-based (positive) training….Training that includes unpleasant (aversive) stimuli or physical punishment may cause unacceptable pain, suffering and distress….These techniques compromise dog welfare, as they may lead to aggressive responses and worsen the problems that they aim to address by masking or aggravating underlying behavioural issues.¹¹ (1)

The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) states that: Punishment and negative reinforcement should not be used in attempts to change the behaviour of dogs. Training of dogs is best achieved through positive reinforcement. The AVA policy highlights the risks associated with punishment and negative reinforcement including individual variance in response to punishment, that it does not teach appropriate behaviour, it may result in the emergence of other undesirable behaviours and inhibition of behaviours that serve as communication signals, and lead to increased stress. The policy also notes the benefits of positive reinforcement, including offering the opportunity for mental stimulation and social interaction, increasing the human-dog bond, improving quality of life and reducing the risk of future behavioural problems⁵³

Some jurisdictions have outlawed certain aversive training devices for dogs. For example:

• In Switzerland, the use of prong collars, choke collars without a stop, as well as collars that use electrical stimuli, compressed air or scents is banned on the grounds that they cause suffering and pain⁵⁴.
• Some Australian states (Victoria and Tasmania) have banned the use of prong collars⁵⁵ .
• Austria has outlawed ‘collars that cause pain’ such as prong collars, electric collars, collars without a stop mechanism and those that emit chemicals⁵⁶.
• In 2023, France passed a bill banning the sale of prong collars, choke collars and electronic collars. The French media quotes the rapporteur for the bill: "The problem with collars is that they are sold over the counter and the owner is not even aware that they are abusive"⁵⁷ .

Section Summary

The published literature suggests that aversive training methods have the potential to negatively impact the welfare of pet dogs. The number of studies assessing the use of the specific training tools outlined in the scope of this paper is limited, studies often use small populations of dogs and, in reference to anti-bark collars, do not reach a consensus on efficacy.

Case studies suggest that there may be a risk of physical injury to dogs from the use of prong collars and choke chains, however the probability and impact of this risk has not been examined.

The Scottish Government promotes positive reward-based training. Other jurisdictions have outlawed specific aversive devices including prong, spray and pinch collars.

Ethical Considerations and Critical Issues

The evidence we have examined suggests that aversive methods of dog training are potentially harmful, and that reward-based training methods have no evidence for harm, although there have been suggestions that overuse of rewards can contribute to obesity.

Devices that have the potential to cause harm and may have limited efficacy are readily available.

Both our review of the published literature, and responses to the SAWC questionnaire on aversive devices indicate that dog welfare should be prioritised in training. From the evidence gathered, we have identified the following characteristics of welfare-oriented dog training:

Dog training should:

1. enhance animal welfare

2. be effective and result in long-term learning

3. be well evidenced

4. be adaptable to a wide range of situations, dog type, age and temperament

5. be consistently applied

How these characteristics are currently understood, and prioritised, differs between practitioners of dog training. Many of the dog trainers and welfare organisations with whom we have consulted express that their approach is better than others and is more welfare oriented. These convictions, and common reliance on personal experience over empirical evidence, may have encouraged the polarity of views that we have encountered.

Enhance animal welfare

Dog training can positively enhance dogs’ welfare through pleasurable training reinforcements, reduction of fear and stress in the environment, and improved social contact. However, as with other human interactions, dog training can also adversely impact animal welfare. Such actions may be directly unpleasant, remembered as being aversive or cause unintended harms⁵⁸.

Evidence regarding the impact of different dog training methods overall has historically been scarce⁵⁹. There is very limited evidence of reward-based training methods causing harms. Theoretical but unevidenced harms may include the potential risk of over rewarding dogs⁶⁰ ,and risks of a negative emotional state if rewards are inconsistent⁶¹ . In contrast, numerous studies describe welfare risks associated with aversive training methods^6,10,42,62.

Animal welfare charities (e.g. RSPCA, SSPCA), animal behaviour organisations (e.g. Centre of Applied Pet Ethology (COAPE)), and animal training organisations (e.g. ABTC) argue that aversive devices and methods can cause pain, distress, and injury and advocate against the use of devices such as choke chains and prong collars. They argue that training using aversive devices does not enhance learning, but rather leads to adverse welfare impacts including pain, fear, and further unwanted behaviours.

Other organisations (e.g., ARDO), and professional dog trainer respondents to our consultation, believe that such devices are beneficial tools that in the right hands can be used safely and effectively.

A utilitarian ethical approach does allow for welfare harms to occur to animals if the benefits achieved in so doing are sufficiently large to offset the impacts. However, given the impact of acute, and long-term welfare harm, SAWC believes that the welfare of the individual dog being trained should be prioritised. Other human and environmental adaptations are available and can also contribute to positive behaviour modification and positive welfare.

Arguments to support prioritisation of animal welfare in dog training include;

1. The Five Domains model of animal welfare that considers that the animals mental state (the 5^th Domain) is what defines that animal’s welfare state. This recognises that the behavioural interactions that animals have with humans can be positive for mental state and welfare, and negative⁶³ .

2. Non-maleficence, the bioethical principle of ‘first do no harm’, prioritises interventions with low risk of negative welfare, and a conscious assessment of the risk-benefit calculus to subjects (dogs), as a priority. Suitably qualified practitioners should weigh the potential risks and benefits to their subjects before proceeding. The problem with this approach is that the evidence to quantify how a training method impacts dog welfare may be absent, and there is no standard against which dog training practitioners can be evaluated.

3. LIFE. Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective framework, which aims to foster a connection between animal welfare and behavioural sciences, as well as reward-based training practices⁶⁴ .

Efficacy and long-term learning

Dog training methods should be both welfare oriented, and effective - just because a training method works, does not mean that it can ethically be justified.

A criticism voiced by respondents to our call for evidence is that aversive methods are used to produce quick results – i.e. that they are perceived as more efficient. The speed at which dog training achieves results may be a priority for some owners and/or trainers, for example where risk of injury to third parties is apparent. Whilst SAWC have not been able to substantiate this assertion, caution must be taken to not always recommend training that prioritises rapid results, especially if such training methods compromise dog welfare.

The debate regarding whether reward-based and aversive training methods result in equivalent behavioural change appears unresolved. However, SAWC advise a precautionary approach regarding use of aversive methods due to the negative welfare impact that stress and anxiety in dogs trained with those methods may experience.

As referenced above, modern learning theory supports reward-based training and no longer advocates practices based on dominance theory. However, consensus on the most efficacious dog training methods is confounded by weak, and contradictory evidence. It is likely that production of new evidence will be challenging due to difficulties in developing ‘real-life’ training scenarios under controlled conditions. Furthermore, due to ethical concerns associated with the use of aversive training devices, ethical approval for studies may not be granted.

Evidence based dog training

Where aversive training methods are proposed the onus should be on the advocate of such methods to evidence their positive impact on welfare, efficacy and utility rather than on critics of such methods, or advocates of non-aversive methods to establish the harm that may result from their application.

Adaptability of training methods to various situations, dog types, ages and temperaments

There was alignment in responses to the stakeholder questionnaire that a ‘one size fits all’ style of training is not always beneficial, and a successful trainer must take into consideration an individual dog’s circumstance, type and individuality. It is important to note that successful training also depends on the trainer’s skill, experience, knowledge, consistency, and allowing sufficient time for application of methods^65-67 .

Be consistently applied - Training the trainer

The attitudes, motivation, understanding and skills training of people influence the nature of their behaviour towards animals, and it is the impact of their behaviour on the animals that elicits animals’ negative and/or positive affective experiences⁵⁸ .

Our evidence shows that how devices are used varies between practitioners, there are limited robust, peer reviewed training methods and dog trainers may or may not be formally trained. Although some practitioners (and organisations) are members of umbrella bodies that have Codes of Conduct and detailed practitioner standards and training requirements, many are independent.

Due to the great variety of training methods and devices used, and conflicting schools of thought regarding dog training, members of the public may find it challenging to accurately assess the skill of a dog trainer. Although in some cases owners may be referred to a particular trainer or behaviourist through a veterinary surgeon, this is not always the case. Pain (from musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal or dermatological conditions) can be associated with problem behaviours in dogs⁶⁸ , and therefore consultation with a veterinary surgeon should be encouraged.

In the UK there is currently no universally recognised regulatory system in place for dog trainers or behaviourists. There is no legal requirement for those who train dogs commercially to have received formal training or to undertake Continuing Professional Development in the subject, and many experienced dog trainers and dog behaviourists have no formal training. In the absence of a regulatory framework for standards in the dog training profession, it is unclear on what due diligence basis veterinarians can make referrals on behalf of clients.

The RCVS is currently assessing the need for regulation of veterinary paraprofessionals, including dog trainers and behaviourists. An effective regulatory or governance system for dog trainers and behaviourists would provide assurance in professional standards that act in the interests of the public and animal welfare⁶⁹ .