If you own or have owned a dog, you very likely used a collar on your dog at some point. They are convenient for attaching a leash for walking, they offer a method of control to your dog while in public, and they make a convenient place to hang identification tags and license tags required by many communities. They are just a standard part of owning a dog for most of us. In recent years, two specialized kinds of dog collars have come under heavy criticism and are the subject of campaigns to ban their sale outright – the electronic (or “shock”) collar and the prong (sometimes called “pinch”) collar.
Efforts are underway in several countries to restrict or ban the sale and use of electronic and prong collars. It is an attempt to move the dog owning public to a more humane and scientifically appropriate way of working with dogs while discarding generations of out-dated methods and tools. I support and endorse these initiatives and those promoting them. But efforts to ban these collars concern me for two reasons. First, they are divisive to the dog owning community. People who have used these collars and are satisfied with the results they have gotten don’t want to be told what they can and cannot use to train their dogs. These collars are popular and have been available for decades. Removing them from dog owners who may not know how to work without them should not be taken lightly. And secondly, the campaigns tend to focus on the wellbeing of the individual dogs who wear these collars and don’t seem to take into account the larger community issues that will inevitably result from their sudden removal.
What’s all the fuss?
Dog owners have been using these collars for decades, why are they now coming under so much criticism that their sale should be banned? The answer is simple: we now have effective training alternatives for dog owners that do not require causing discomfort or pain to the dog. The past 15-20 years has seen something of a revolution in the field of dog training. A combination of more modern training techniques based on behavioural science and an increase in research about dogs and their behaviour has given dog owners a vast array of new approaches to training and working with their dogs. This modern, science-based approach largely advocates for encouraging the behaviours we want from our dogs instead of using unpleasant actions to discourage the dog from doing anything but what we are asking them to do.
A defining characteristic of the electronic and prong collars is that they are designed to provide sensations to a dog that they will find uncomfortable enough to try and avoid. It’s kind of an “if you don’t do what I ask, you won’t like what happens next” approach to teaching a dog. In the past, these collars were considered innovative tools and effective tools but the advancements in dog training technology have made them just one of many training techniques that dog owners can use to get the results they want. The trouble is that not all “results” are equal when it comes to dogs and behaviour. Some approaches are less intrusive and more humane than others.
Being more humane
Proponents for banning electronic and prong collars have one simple argument why these collars should not be used – given the availability of highly effective alternatives, there is no reason to deliberately cause discomfort or pain to a dog in trying to teach them. It is a matter of being more humane to our dogs. It is, in my opinion, a very sound and reasonable argument. If there is a way to work with my dogs that does not risk them finding the experience unpleasant, why would I not choose that approach?
This is where the difficulty begins. It cannot be denied that dog owners have been using electronic and prong collars for many years. Sales and use of these collars would indicate that many people find them useful and are satisfied with the results in using them with their dogs. Estimates indicate that there are millions of these collars in use today. Generally, most dog owners will use whatever methods and tools have given them results in the past. There is no motivation to change if the results have been satisfactory.
Even though dog training techniques have advanced significantly, the electronic and prong collars remain popular with some in the dog community. Efforts to ban these collars will necessarily upset people who have depended on them in working with their dogs. Wanting to make the world a more humane and pleasant place for dogs is a laudable and important goal. But if we could snap our fingers and make all of the electronic and prong collars disappear tomorrow, what would the world look like?
A perfect world?
Imagine a sunny day in that idyllic world without electronic and prong collars. A petite woman in her mid-40s walks her 100 pound rottweiler with some difficulty. She no longer uses a prong collar to manage her dog and he is easily pulling her down the street as she struggles with her leash and flat collar. Another woman approaches ahead with a small toy poodle that erupts with barking as it strains at the end of its leash. And this is where the nightmare begins.
Having had the prong collar that she has depended on taken away, the woman cannot control her rottweiler and loses control of the leash. The larger dog charges the barking poodle and its fearful owner. In a matter of seconds, the two dogs scuffle and the small poodle lies dead with its neck snapped before the rottweiler’s owner can even get there to regain control of the leash. Not having a prong collar to manage dogs does not benefit the dog owners in this scenario, at least from the standpoint of the woman who owned the poodle in this scenario.
And this is just one of a hundreds, perhaps thousands of potential scenarios. It is a simple fact that each year millions of dogs are surrendered to shelters, the most common reason being unmanageable behaviour problems. How many additional dogs would be surrendered if owners were not able to use familiar tools that are suddenly declared illegal? How would dog owners cope with the loss of tools they have depended on to safely work with their dogs in public? It’s an interesting question.
Not so black and white
While there is anecdotal evidence that many dogs are harmed or killed each year by electronic and prong collars, it is impossible to accurately estimate how many lives would be saved by banning these collars. Similarly, as in the example above, it is impossible to estimate how many dogs would die as a result of a sudden and outright ban of these collars. It is common sense that as dog training technology advances, less humane tools and methods should be replaced by better, more humane approaches. But getting there is not just a simple matter of legislation. It is a matter of education.
The woman in the scenario above could have avoided that unpleasant confrontation had she been taught alternative methods to work with her rottweiler to manage or prevent its aggressive behaviour. Banning the use of prong collars does nothing to provide those alternatives, it simply removes one tool that was useful to her. How beneficial would it have been for her if someone had offered her a free 4-week course to help her learn and use new training skills with her dog if she agreed to surrender her prong collar at its completion?
Local governments should also have a vested interest in promoting public safety in the community. Providing funding for dog owner re-education would not only ease the transition from electronic and prong collars to more modern methods, it could reduce the incidence of dog aggression in the community and reduce the number of dogs ending up in community funded shelters. Unfortunately, it takes time and effort to craft dog owner re-education programs and to lobby for funding of such programs. It is a far easier thing to show horrifying pictures to the public and law-makers and get a ban on the sale and/or use of electronic and prong collars. But it is not a complete solution.
My concern here is that these efforts to ban these collars, although well-intentioned, have the potential to create as many problems as they might solve if they are seen as a complete solution to the problem. A ban would address only one part of the larger problem of moving society forward toward more humane and effective dog training. It seems that the rest is left up to individual dog professionals to take up the slack (or not) and deal with whatever fallout may result from banning legislation.
In my view, we have an opportunity here. The issue of electronic and prong collars has been brought to the forefront. Using this opportunity to engage organizations for dog professionals like the APDT, IAABC, CCPDT, PPG, and others to develop dog owner education programs and lobby lawmakers to support them seems like a logical, necessary, and complementary approach to advocating for banning legislation. If dog professionals are truly concerned about a more humane world for dogs, I think we own it to them to invest as much time and effort into teaching dog owners how to do better as we do into removing outdated and unnecessary tools from the marketplace.
PLEASE NOTE: Canine Nation believes that efforts to ban the sale and use of potentially dangerous and harmful tools like electronic and prong collars are useful and necessary. We support them. We also believe that dog owner education programs are necessary to assist in providing adequate tools and training alternatives for the health and safety of the dogs and the general public.
Be sure to check out our Canine Nation ebooks in the Canine Nation store and Dogwise. Join our conversation on Facebook in the Canine Nation Forum!
These Canine Nation ebooks are now available –
Photo credits –
Author – Petra Wingate copyright 2010
Electronic Collar –Wikimedia Commons
Prong Collar – Wikimedia Commons
I’ve arrived late to the topic but would have thought that some of the answers may now be available since many countries like the UK have either banned the shock and prong collars or their use is very rare. It would be interesting to compare numbers of “uncontrollable” dogs that end up in rescue centres and whether disabled people have a decreased supply of dogs that they can work with. As someone quite petite who has handled very large strong dogs at no point has it occurred to me to use pain to manipulate behaviour but I have not been in a community where this is the norm
I try positive methods first, but they do not work on all dogs. My rescue adult St Bernard was one of them. NOT food motivated, NOT toy motivated, was controlable on on a prong collar.
Once the dog understands what you want, then the prong doesn’t even get used.
Training him with food? Only would work if you starved him for days as he really didn’t care about food. To me that is much more inhumane than a couple of leash checks on a prong collar.
They have also found that the prong collar does not damage the trachea like a flat collar can.
Take away the prong and there will be many more dogs turned into shelters, and many more injured dogs.
I just had a dog this week who was heading being turned into the shelter as the owner couldn’t control him on a regular collar. After one session with the prong, different dog, owner now is keeping the dog.
because of ignorant and uneducated legislators pushed by animal rights crazies ( and some people here) ALL “choke chains’ etc are now BANNED in Toronto so that Rottie now has NO way of being controlled.. and less dogs will be owned ..shelters euths will rise and the AR’s win again where is the common sense.?
Hi Al –
Your points would be well taken if you could provide some reliable statistics on declining dog ownership and rising shelter kills. It would be even be even better if you could prove a causal link between collars used and these statistics. Until then, however, I would have to classify your comments here as “anecdotal observation.” Or possibly speculation.
Thanks for your comment.
Eric
From the copy above: “there is no reason to deliberately cause discomfort or pain to a dog in trying to teach them” is incorrect.
To disavow of basic, tried and true training principles (i.e. all four quadrants are in use in some form or another) is to decrease efficacy and reliability. Inserting emotion into the equation amounts to kowtowing to humanizing dogs and conflating abuse with valid training.
I read through some of your responses above and commend you for hosting a civil and mutually respectful conversation. In one of your responses, I read you believe the issue with the tools is the uneducated owner. I would submit that increasing the burden to the owner with some of the other training modalities where communication to the dog is not clear and unwanted/ unmanageable behaviors don’t stop in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. much sooner than 4 weeks), is a set-up for overall failure.
My goal and ethical obligation to both the dog and consumer is to provide training that creates reliable, expedient, and precise results. Not taking into consideration the fact that the average owner does not have the time to use these mysterious “humane alternate methods” (the efficacy of which has yet to be proven with respect to stopping unwanted behaviors permanently and immediately) has resulted in death sentences for countless dogs to date.
That said, I think the best trainers have a wide array of tools and methods they use deftly to address the specific dogs and owners they encounter. A mistake many who advocate “force free” or R+ only advocates make is to pigeonhole trainers who use aversive methods as the photonegative of purely positive (a misnomer I was happy to see you dispel in your article). We take into account the severity of the behavior, the time commitment allotted for training, the nature of the dog, and the location of training (board and train vs. group sessions vs. one-on-one lessons) along with other variables to devise a program.
Whatever our path forward, if trainers do not have a way to stop an unwanted behavior immediately and reliably, dogs will continue to be surrendered and killed for want of relatively simple behavior modification needs.
My balanced colleagues and I make many videos documenting each step of our training programs both to help people see the results of our methods and to allow motivated owners to self-train. We do this despite targeting from R+ and so-called “force free” folks with violent threats and immediate cries of abuse (despite producing happy, well-adjusted dogs who then know how to existing with their families). I have requested and searched for such videos from trainers with other methodology but – despite my requests and searches, no such documentation has been found.
Many of my training colleagues have challenged other trainers to take a common behavior issue in a dog who has not received any type of training yet (e.g. separation anxiety, leash reactivity or pulling, etc.) and show the dog going through the process with a reliable and positive outcome both in the short and long-term. This lack of documented success (by the above definition) is a huge stumbling block to removing tools and methods from trainers. Since these trainers met with success and transferred these techniques to owners with great precision and long-term reliability, AND have respected the dog enough to provide clear, concise instruction which the dog understood and deferred to immediately, there are tons of documented happy endings. This is not so with folks who remove aversive methods and tools from their repertoire when facing unwanted behaviors that require immediate inhibition for the dog’s survival (figuratively or literally).
The e-collar and prong collar used correctly are excellent tools for persons with limited mobility such as quadriplegia to communicate with their dogs, especially for service dogs helping these people maintain independence. It is sad that a person goes to great lengths to say tools should be banned without not only assessing their uses when properly used but also the number of people and dogs that can communicate with each other through the use of these tools. Deaf dogs also can be trained with e-collars as these collars can communicate with the dog through vibration when the dog is not looking at the handler. Judgements should not be made without assessing the whole picture and not just assuming one knows how and when these tools are used and that they are always used incorrectly and hurt the dog. I encourage people to open their minds to other possibilities.
excellent points not all e collars use shock some use buzzers or smells or lights or vibration . they will try to carve out an ‘exemption” for them somehow.. but better to leave things as they are I guess all deaf dogs should just be killed now..
Please note that is sarcasm.. most of these methods are the preferred way to train a deaf dog but now most of them will be ( or already are in many places) banned.. so what happens to the deaf dogs?
I suppose they will be trained by other methods.
If you use an electronic collar you are lazy….Learn to use a proper chocker chain…take some real obedience classes..
If you use a Pinch collar…you are basically , over and over scratching the K-9’s neck nerves, exposing them, and creating scars, which over time nullifies the effect..all you’re doing is destroying it’s neck…and lazy, learn to use a regular chocker chain properly and you don’t need crap like pinch collers.
If you have an over aggressive or high spirited K-9, you are out of your league. ..get one more submissive to start with..
It has zero to do with laziness and all about giving your dog off-leash freedom. E-collars and prong collars are simply communication tools. They do not harm dogs in any way. I’ve used them on hundreds of dogs without any of the injuries you claim. Do some more research before you make such a claim.
in case you don;t know chain collars are included in the ban
Obviously a response based on hearsay, rumor, and emotion instead of actual experience.
E-collars and prongs are awesome tools. I use them on over one hundred dogs per year with great success. We always end uo with happy well adjusted dogs in the end and very happy clients.
When exactly does something become “outdated”?
https://youtu.be/rqgMycviVvM
Hi Christy –
I’m assuming that you are the creator of the video above. I’ve left a comment directly on the YouTube video.
Overall, I liked your video very much and I agree with much of what you say. It’s refreshing to see a well thought out response and I especially liked that you called for more dialogue on these issues. We could use a lot more dialogue and a lot less grandstanding!
Thanks for your contribution to the dialogue!
Eric
There is power in every quadrant of the operant model (principle governing all B-mod). As a trainer all you can do is add and remove stimuli from a given environment. Limitations on stimuli will directly effect efficiency and effectiveness in training.
Tools don’t hurt dogs people hurt dogs. If you’re hurting the dog, you’re doing it wrong.
Did the first Protozoa swim toward the light or away from the darkness? No quadrant stands alone.
Thanks for your comments Grayson!
I agree with you completely. Tools don’t hurt dogs, people hurt dogs. It is a fact that some tools are more easily misused and might cause more damage if used improperly. That’s the reason I stressed owner education so strongly in this article.
All the best,
Erid
Dogs get into bad behaviors for a variety of reasons. One of which is lack of clear leadership by the owners who love them. Many dogs are put down due to these behaviors that owners failed to manage. Making excuses for the dog, had a bad life before we rescued him etc.. The dog understands rules. He needs boundaries. He needs someone to be in charge. He needs to have some consequence for unwanted behavior. Same as a child. Or the behavior will continue. Only we can’t take his phone away. In a pack. He will be corrected swiftly and sharply by the other pack members. When humans are their pack the lack of clear corrections does not bode well for the dog. They want to work for you. We don’t want them to have to ‘work’ we want them to have a nice life. All sunshine and rainbows. When the dog behavior gets out of hand. The owner will look for training. Humane balanced trainers who use all tools correctly , can help a dog , potentially saving it. Knowing how to use a tool before putting it on your dog is paramount. Unfortunately people will look for the cheapest option first. A lot of equipment out there would not even be used by a good trainer. Yet an owner, will post on a remote collar training forum- what’s a cheap e collar I can get to use for my dogs—- insert bad behavior option– there aren’t any. No one would use anything but the best and safest. . You also are showing a severe lack of understanding on why it is used. It is not to ” stop something”. This is a communication tool. Same as any collar; it must be used properly. Maybe mandating that these can only be sold to people who will be taught to use them correctly might help. But banning them. Not the answer. The scenario of the tiny lady walking the big dog, if the dog was trained. You would not need the prong collar to walk him. You could walk him and he would obey the commands you use. Heel, come , sit etc. He pays attention to you, not the other dog. If you need that to ” control” the dog in certain situations, he is not Trained. The tools only need to be relied on for the duration of a dogs life when his behavior cannot be trusted. Training a dog is showing him he can trust you to handle any situation. You are his Confidence. People who only treat a dog for good things to get more of it and ignore the bad. Do nothing to ever Stop the bad. The people who do not like these tools have not seen them used correctly, and yes it is anger inducing if you have seen them used Incorrectly. A proper understanding is needed here. Not a ban. Or many more dogs will die. Owners who love the dog so much- that have provided only love and no leadership; end up desperate for help. Then they go finally to a balanced trainer who can help. However even that is only as good as how the owner follows through. Many people have come to an understanding about these collars after seeing transformations in their own pet. Then they can speak to the use of these collars. Where before they were standing on the Pickett line outside the park where our dog training class was held. Never noticing the happy tails of the off leash dogs in class.
As a master’s level applied animal behaviorist and dog trainer/handler for over 20 years, the trend towards R+ training is BOTH useful, and potentially dangerous. Yes, many dogs learn very well how to perform behaviors using positive reinforcement; this does not however eliminate the need for aversive consequences for actions that the dog must not perform in order to live politely in our human society which does not permit natural canine responses such as leash reactivity, human or canine aggression, or chasing/killing other animals. The Force Free movement does NOT adequately address the issues many owners face such as competing motivators (dog wants to chase squirrel more than eat treat), self-reinforcing behaviors such as barking and aggression (which will NOT respond to lengthy desensitization and/or habituation protocols in many dogs who are simultaneously reinforcing the behavior with each repetition), or those dogs whose behaviors need to be modified RAPIDLY in order for people/animals around them to be safe (human aggression, bolting out doors into traffic, chicken killing, etc). I firmly believe it is far more humane to BOTH dogs and their owners to provide clear, consistent training that gives immediate feedback on the choices a dog makes – with rewards and consequences. Banning tools that provide help to a large number of difficult dogs does not make a more compassionate world, it bolsters a false ideology that ALL dogs can be trained with R+ in ALL settings for ALL behaviors – and THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.
Hi Jen –
I agree with much of what you say here. The issues are far more complex than many in the dog world want to admit. I am not, nor have I ever been a fan of the “Force Free Movement” for the reasons you state above. The scientific literature has a great deal to say on how to effectively train animals and it goes well beyond simple +R training. We need to find better ways to communicate some of the nuances of a more comprehensive approach to working with our dogs. This article was intended to start a conversation along those lines; it was not meant to be the solution.
Thanks for your comments.
Eric
Hi Eric, thanks for your reply and for being willing to engage in discussion! I’m pretty familiar with the body of scientific literature as the human-animal bond is the focus of my doctoral research. I think there are some serious gaps between many of the results and the inferences people make from them, the most significant being those I mentioned above. It is worth noting that many people who want these tools banned have the idea that learning – and subsequently dogs’ entire lives – must be stress-free in order for it to be humane. This is neither reality nor is it healthy for dogs! This does NOT mean that we need to yank on our dogs or zap them on max (which some think are the only things that happen with these tools), but it does mean that during training the dog should learn that it can feel pressure, or perform a behavior when it would rather be doing something else… and it isn’t the end of the world. It’s actually a critical part of a dog’s education – our job as trainers is to help dogs function well in the world, not just when things are rosy. Stress happens – at the vet, at a boarding kennel, on a walk. Dogs that have developed confidence in their own abilities and learned that their behavior impacts the world handle life better. We should absolutely continue to research canine cognition, learning and I would argue we should be also be examining our own biases and ideologies. Recognizing when we are projecting our human desires, guilt, and sometimes shame onto our companion animals can help us stop some of the radical nonsense that is being proposed in the name of welfare… no dogs in cars when it’s over 75F (RI), no dogs crated in homes (NJ), and the banning of tools that save dogs’ lives and owners’ sanity.
As a professional who uses both prongs and electronic collars in my training, I have seen both sides. I have met the clients that have brought in their fear aggressive dogs on e-collars and prongs and asked me if they should “shock” them if they come after me — I have also seen hundreds of fearful, aggressive, and naughty dogs trained properly under my guidance go on to become amazing advocates for those using the tools correctly. My own dogs are trained using both, and I pride myself in using them properly along side motivational and reward based training methods in order to create happy, eager to please dog who is also 100% reliable on and off leash, both as pets and as competition level sport dogs. It is easy to call oher tools “humane”, but what about the dogs that are injuring themselves running full speed on a head halter or front clip harness? What about dogs with collapsed tracheas because every other trainer has failed them in teaching them how to properly use tools? Irresponsible dog training comes down to a lack of education and a lack of training. No tool will automatically create a dog that heels under distraction and comes when called in all situations. Tools are simply a means to an end, and the two that you are currently requesting be banned have also saved thousands of lives. I suggest all dog training professionals attend workshops and seminars from highly respected trainers from all methodologies and make their opinions based on THOSE techniques, not the misinformed and incorrect applications demonstrated from a client who has had no formal training.
Agree with you completely!
All the best,
Eric
Every tool has its purpose and upside…Every tool has its downfall. I’ve seen equal amounts of harm done by both flat and prong collars. The majority of the owners who stand behind various tools have had (or should have had) proper education on the usage of the tool. I’ve also seen equal amounts of owners who have had zero education and their dogs are a nightmare on our streets. It all comes down to the owners themselves and not the tools. I have a very happy ecollar trained dog who uses a prong collar on city streets. Neither tool has ever been used in a harmful manner and as a result his excitement when hearing these tools CE our is over the top. While I’m a for education but it swings both ways.
To assume there is only one way to use a tool would be disrespectful to all the thoughtful, intelligent, caring trainers who have made huge advancements in the method of using them. A great way to scare and trick people is to pretend that trainers using all 4 quadrants have not changed and grown in their training methods. Positive reinforcement has come a long way and any advancement in technique helps all trainers and is needed as well. Some of the best dog trainers understand dogs learn through reward and punishment. Such is life. To deny owners the ability to understand their dog and give all training options puts them and the industry into a box.
Let me just say a few things here. This article is badly misleading. Dogs are not trained with e-collars, or prong collars, training trains them. Both tools are just that, tools. They do nothing until a human puts it to use.
Secondly, no dogs are killed by e-collars or prong collars. I could kill a dog with my hands easily, but nobody is banning hands here. They are simply communication tools, that’s it. If you’re hurting your dog, you’re doing it wrong. There is no proof that pure positive training, (which doesn’t exist) can rehabilitate an aggressive dog. Where are the videos? They don’t exist.
Train your dog and use whatever tools necessary to fine tune. Stop the fear mongering!
Hi Matt –
I would be interested if you could quote directly from the article where I said that dogs are killed by these collars. I agree completely with your assertion that any collar (including electronic or prong collars) are just tools and that it is their USE that will determine whether they are a benefit or a harm to dogs.
I think your reaction to this article is a wonderful example of why I chose its title – The Shock and Prong War. For whatever reason, you seem to want to chastise me for saying basically what you have said here except that I suggest that we do more to educate dog owners to help them better work with their dogs. We’re not necessarily on “different sides” here.
Wouldn’t it be better to talk TO each other rather than AT each other?
All the best,
Eric
So Eric, what does this phrase actually mean? “While there is anecdotal evidence that many dogs are harmed or killed each year by electronic and prong collars,” ?? What is it you are saying? And if you don’t believe it , why write it?
Hi Reg –
What that phrase means is that there are plenty of stories (anecdotes) of dogs being harmed or killed from various people. But there is no verifiable, scientific data that has been collected to support such claims.
What I’m saying is that these anecdotes and stories are enough to raise peoples emotional concerns about shock and prong collars but that we have no hard data that we can point to that substantiate such claims. It would be a much better conversation if we had reliable data that we could all agree on before making claims about these collars. But we don’t.
I guess the bottom line is that I think we need to look closer and more objectively to see what is really going on and not rely on the emotional stories from people on one or the other side of the issue.
Does that clear this up? Let me know, I’m happy to explain further if needed.
All the best,
Eric
Similarly, Eric, there are plenty of stories (anecdotes) of dogs with aggression issues going through 2, 3, 4 or more “positive”/R+ trainers without the issues being resolved then, in a last ditch effort by the owner/rescue to avoid having to put the dog down, the animal is put into the hands of a “balanced” trainer and the issue is resolved. The dog gets to go on to live a happy, quality life.
And that’s the problem, in my opinion, Bob. We all have “plenty of stories” but until we can agree on facts and data, everyone is just defending their ideological turf. I’m not really into that. I prefer facts and research and science. For example, I know for a fact that you can raise a happy and healthy dog while using a prong collar. I know this because I did it. I’ve also used an e-collar on my dogs without significant or lasting harm to either the dog or my relationship with them. And I’ve also raised dogs without those tools and had equally happy results. What that taught me is not that one or the other approaches is WRONG but that there are alternatives and that they can produce similarly happy results. So I have a choice. No more, no less. The rest I leave to science.
Until we can have discussions about how best to look after the welfare of dogs without unnecessary hyperbole and this fierce dedication to defend our “side” of an argument, we’re just going to talk past each other. And I’m pretty sure that the dogs don’t care whether it’s the incompetent “positive” dog trainers or the incompetent “balanced” trainers who got them killed.
I’m glad you read the article and I’m grateful for your comments. At least we have started the conversation. I appreciate that.
All the best,
Eric
anecdotal evidence does not data make.. so why bother with saying it
Hi Al –
Here’s the whole sentence from the article:
“While there is anecdotal evidence that many dogs are harmed or killed each year by electronic and prong collars, it is impossible to accurately estimate how many lives would be saved by banning these collars.”
Let me rephrase that for you:
“Anecdotal evidence is not reliable. Both sides of this argument present anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence makes it impossible to make an accurate and valid assessment of anything on this issue. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient.”
I hope that makes my point clearer. If we are going to get anywhere productive on this topic, we need to focus on solid information and education. And that is why I bothered to say it. When it comes to “anecdotal evidence”, both sides of the argument are wrong to use it to defend their position. It is inherently unreliable.
Does that clear it up for you?
Thanks for your comments
Eric
Prong and e collars do not cause pain to the dog when used properly. I think it’s incorrect to base an opinion on that incorrect assumption. I’m not sure where you get the evidence that these collars have killed dog every year, but some proof to back up that statement would be nice. Maybe some stats are also available to show how many dog lives have been saved by using these training tools. A ban on these tools is irresponsible and driven by emotion, not facts.
Thanks for your comments Greg.
I would suggest that I am under no obligation to supply you with evidence that these collars have killed dogs every year since I made no such claim in this article. In fact, I went out of my way to say that there is no conclusive data that these collars kill dogs or that dogs would suffer if these collars were banned.
And I agree with you that an outright ban without a more comprehensive approach to owner education would be irresponsible. I can’t speak to what motivates others to make their arguments but I try to base mine on facts and reason.
All the best,
Eric
I’m waiting to see this data of dogs being “killed” by prong or e-collars. I doubt there is any. Properly used these training tools submit little actual distress to the animals. In fact, in a recent study, cortisol levels (a physiological indication of stress) were found to be higher in dogs trained by “positive” only methods compared to those trained using more “traditional” methods! Long term stress is a form of “harm” in and of its self and it is difficult to argue that so called “force free” methods require a longer period of time to accomplish the same results as “balanced” methods. The fact is most “balanced” trainers predominately use reward based training methods when working with dogs. “Corrections” are somewhat rare, and usually quite mild. A balanced approach that incorporates all the available tools, based on the individual dog’s needs, will always be the superior training protocol. Regardless, I agree it is time for this constant bickering to stop. Train your dog the way you choose to As long as the training is not abusive, the dog’s health and well-being is not put in jeopardy, it’s no one else’s business.
Thanks for your comments Bob.
I believe that I pointed out that credible data supporting dogs being harmed or killed by these collars is not available. Nor is data on the removal of these collars would harm or kill dogs due to a variety of management scenarios.
In any case, these collars are designed to apply enough unpleasant stimulus (NOT pain or damage!) so that the dog would prefer to avoid it. It’s the basis of that style of training. If the dog complies, it gets to avoid the unpleasant stimulus (again, NOT pain or damage).
Does it work? Yes. Is it the best way to train? Not for me. Should these collars be banned? Not without a more comprehensive approach to dog, owner, and public safety.
But that’s my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Eric
Similarly it is arguable that there is a lack of credible data supporting dogs with serious reactive problems being rehabilitated via PP/FF training techniques. Conveniently FF/PP trainers seem to be unable to produce before and after video footage of these dogs. Let alone videos of the actual training procedure.
Hi Bob –
I agree that there is precious little verifiable data on the effects of these collars on dogs both short and long term. I think it would be in everyone’s interest (perhaps most especially the dogs) if we could encourage credible and objective research from reputable sources.
To your point about “before and after” videos, I am skeptical of that kind of demonstration regardless of the trainer’s professed techniques or tools. Anyone who understands animal behaviour will tell you that behaviour is fluid and one cannot judge the success or lack thereof of a behaviour modification approach from a single 5 minute video. It’s just not realistic.
We need more solid research and less anecdotes and hyperbole. In my humble opinion of course.
All the best,
Eric
I also agree that shock and prong collars are outdated and using more humane ways to train our pets is the best way to go. As a positive trainer, there are times I see dogs that are so distracted by everything that it is next to impossible to get their attention. Sometimes they might need a little more incentive to pay attention so the positive training will take. I don’t believe these tools should be outlawed, but before they are used, an owner needs to have instructions on correctly using these tools.
Why not train people on the use of shock and prongs so that they are used correctly. That way people are not hurting their dogs when using them excessively.
Why not teach them equally effective methods that don’t require expensive, specialized equipment?
Training technology has advanced and we have many more options today than we did 20 years ago.
For me, this is mostly about education and moving beyond outdated methods. Sure, those methods may produce satisfactory results but could there be better way to do the job? Remaining stuck in the “old ways” of doing things is frowned upon in most professions. I don’t often see people insisting that we should have those Intel 386 based PC’s running DOS after all.
That’s how I see it anyway.
Thanks for reading!
Eric
Hey thanks for the awesome blog post. Im not a positive trainer anymore, although i use to be.
I think its important to understand that these tools can be used in a very rewarding and painless manner, im mostly talking about ecollars as prongs are banned in my state and that trainers from our side of the tracks (balanced trainers) do pioneer into new and funner ways to train the dogs using these tools. For example a labrador i just finished training who was due to be rehomed. Now i am getting daily videos of the dog living happily with the family and more importantly there you child who he use to hurt. This Labrador loves the ecollar, it means clear communication and we pair everything with Positive R, he has gone from an unhappy dog being segregated from his family due to his dangerous behaviour, to a happy well rounded member of the family who is finally having his needs fulfilled.
The owners had tried a positive only trainer first, and unfortunalty despite the dog learning some awesome sit and down commands (which had no duration and were more like tricks then obedience) he was still out of control. The communication just was not there for him, and this meant he was suffering.
Thanks for your comments!
The science of behaviour and learning has many facets and particular behaviours can often be obtained by several different methods. Which method is best will depend on dozens of variables in the dog, the skill and temperament of the owner/trainer, and the skill/knowledge basse of the instructor working with the owner. The overall complicating factor is that dogs are, by their genetics and evolutionary design, predisposed to put up with whatever we throw at them so long as they receive sufficient food, water, and security.
There are many roads to achieve a happy life with dogs. How one gets there depends on how you define “happiness” with dogs and what you are willing to do to get there. I can only decide for myself what works for me and talk about how my journey goes.
I hope yours goes well for you and your dogs!
Eric
I would love to see the solutions you’re creating To bridge the gap and provide access to education as a form of prevention of behavioral issues.
Where’s the solutions other than banning tools that can be effective for solving problems?
You MUST also offer a solution, yes?
Hi Maggie –
I don’t particularly feel obligated or qualified to provide A SOLUTION to what I feel is the very complex issue of dog ownership/management. I think such solutions, if they can exist, must come from the coordinated efforts of many professionals willing to move the dog owning public toward a better understanding of their responsibilities and the tools available to help them live happy and productive lives with their dogs.
I have my thoughts and opinions. But I think they would best serve the public if they were offered in concert with other knowledgeable professionals from the many disciplines that make up the dog world. I am not so arrogant that I think I have the all the answers. But I do have questions and a willingness to find answers!
Thanks
Eric
Believe me, the shock manufacturers will pour a lot of marketing (education) dollars in to humane no pull options, and maybe even some new products like anti-bark training dvd’s, if they can’t sell these devices. I think they may already see some early scribblings on the wall. Other countries have made the switch, and we can, too. Unless, of course, you think we made a mistake forsaking the contents of Idstone too soon.
I don’t support the use of these tools but you are right on the money with your point that they prevent a lot of dogs from ending up euthanized or in shelters. Not everyone is going to admit they need to find a different way to train their dog, and pretty much no one likes to hear that they are being cruel to their dog. Mind you, in the example with the Rottweiler, if there were no prong collars available, maybe he would never have developed the frustration that often precedes aggressive behaviour.
You’re kidding right? You think the prong collar creates that behavior? How about prey drive? I think that is a more likely and reasonable conclusion, but the keyword there is reasonable.
It seems to me that if positive trainers offer more attractive, more effective options, people will naturally move away from using prong or shock collars. Who wouldn’t want the more effective option, especially if it is kinder? I’m all in favor of positive training, but if an electric bark collar keeps someone from being thrown out of their apartment or having the neighbors insist that they get rid of the dog, I don’t really think that’s such a bad thing. (And I say that as someone who in the midst of weeks of trying to use positive training to reduce barking in my yappy young dog. With limited success.) Banning things is a very blunt instrument. More effective to focus on teaching people better methods.
Amen, Lynn. Amen. Couldn’t agree more.
Thanks for reading!
I would love to see prong and shock gone but agree that education is a HUGE part of what makes anything successful. Enjoyed the article. some goods thoughts.