Published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, this commentary by R. Sargisson and I. McLean responds to a highly cited study by China et al. evaluating the effectiveness of remote electronic collars (e-collars) compared with positive reinforcement–based training. China et al. concluded that there is “no evidence to indicate that E-collar training is necessary,” a statement that has influenced policy conversations regarding bans on e-collars.
The commentary raises several concerns about whether the study’s methods and statistical analyses sufficiently support its conclusions. The authors highlight methodological inconsistencies between the focal paper and its companion study, suggesting that the differences complicate interpretation and comparison. They argue that these inconsistencies may undermine the reliability of the reported findings.
In addition, Sargisson and McLean discuss issues related to the statistical analysis, expressing concern that the analytical approaches may not fully capture outcome variability or appropriately differentiate between training methods. These limitations, they argue, challenge the validity of strong, generalized conclusions regarding the necessity or efficacy of e-collars.
The commentary emphasizes that e-collars are not primarily used for recall and obedience training, as evaluated in China et al.’s study. Instead, they are often applied in predation-prevention contexts, where welfare considerations intersect with safety concerns. The authors provide the example of training hunting dogs in New Zealand to avoid attacking protected species such as kiwi using a single or double pairing of an aversive electric shock with a target stimulus, a method reported to produce long-lasting avoidance.
Given these distinctions, Sargisson and McLean argue that the study’s conclusions risk being overapplied, especially by policymakers who may interpret the findings as justification for broad bans that extend beyond the study’s scope. They stress that China et al. did not assess e-collar efficacy for preventing aggressive or predatory behaviors, yet the framing of the results could inadvertently influence policy in that direction.
Overall, the commentary calls for greater methodological precision, clearer statistical justification, and more modest interpretation of results in research on training tools. The authors advocate for nuanced evaluation rather than sweeping conclusions, especially in areas where welfare, safety, and practical training needs intersect.
Source: Sargisson, R., & McLean, I. (2021). Commentary: Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive Reinforcement. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. Published April 29, 2021.
