Sargisson and Mclean (2021) analyzed a widely cited study by China et al. on the use of electronic collars (e-collars) versus positive reinforcement in dog training. The original study concluded there was “no evidence to indicate that e-collar training is necessary.”
Key Criticisms:
- Methodological inconsistencies between this and related companion studies were highlighted, making comparisons difficult.
- Statistical analysis concerns suggested that conclusions may not fully align with the reported results.
- The authors noted that the conclusions extended beyond the actual findings, particularly when generalized to all training contexts.
Context: E-collars are typically used to curb life-threatening behaviors, such as predation or aggression. For example, in New Zealand, e-collar training has been applied to prevent hunting dogs from attacking kiwi birds. In such cases, intense but limited shocks were paired with a target stimulus, producing reliable avoidance responses lasting up to three years.
Implications: While welfare concerns are central to the debate, the commentary warned that research with narrow objectives (recall and obedience) might be misapplied by governments when considering policy or legal bans on e-collars across all training uses. The authors emphasized the need for more precise research and careful interpretation before shaping welfare guidelines and legislation.
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, 8. Authors: Rachel Sargisson, Ian Mclean. Journal: Frontiers in Veterinary Science.
