Source: Polina Tankilevitch/Pexels
By Mary Angilly, force-free positive dog trainer and Marc Bekoff, Ph.D.
“Balanced” is one of the more deceitful words used in the unregulated field of dog training. This approach utilizes both positive reinforcement (rewards-based) methods and aversives (physical punishment). It might sound appealing to use all of the tools available. However, there is no evidence to suggest dogs, regardless of learning style or ability, learn more effectively when aversive training methods are included in the process.
The best way to teach a dog what you would like them to do or not do is to follow the science; take their points of view; respect that they have vastly different personalities; have them consent to what you want them to do; make it fun, enriching, and positive for them and for you; do no harm; respect that dogs are sentient, emotional beings; throw in some love; and use positive force-free methods.
The scientific research on dog training clearly highlights the numerous risks associated with aversive methods. These include a weakened bond with your dog; increased levels of stress, fear, anxiety, and aggression; reduced effectiveness of training; and a more pessimistic outlook in your dog (e.g., China et al., 2020; de Castro et al., 2019; Ziv, 2017).
The evidence is so compelling that many organizations, such as the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB), firmly oppose such techniques:
“The ACVB opposes training methods that cause short- or long-term pain, discomfort, or fear. Aversive methods can endanger both people and animals, threaten animal welfare by hindering learning, increasing fear-based behaviors, and causing direct injury.”
The limitations of a new study favoring e-collars in certain situations
A recent hotly debated new study as well as recurring controversy about training methodology among leaders in the field motivated us to discuss this issue once again. The study, Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs, favors e-collars as more effective than food rewards to stop dogs from chasing a lure. The study acknowledges certain limitations, and we found these substantial enough to undermine its credibility. They include:
- No reward-based trainers were involved, while an expert balanced trainer and his student conducted the training.
- The selected dogs were highly motivated to chase a lure, yet no reinforcement beyond food was used and the value of the food for each dog was not monitored.
- While e-collar strength was adjusted for individual dogs, rewards were not similarly tailored.
- The study only compared the effect of associating food with a word linked to a strong shock which caused yelping in dogs, a clear indicator of pain and/or stress. Every single dog receiving e-collar shocks yelped.
- Inconsistencies in data collection and missing details were noted, such as the unrecorded walking of dogs between sessions. Cortisol testing is only one potential way of measuring stress
These flaws raise concerns about the study’s credibility and long-term outcomes, indicating the need for a more rigorous approach that includes skilled reward-based trainers and an examination of the long-term effectiveness of training methods without e-collars. However, in effect, with or without these and other limitations, it licenses the use of e-collars in certain contexts.
It’s also important to recognize that the study concluded e-collar training was more effective in stopping dogs from chasing a remote-controlled lure in a controlled five-day training period compared to positive reinforcement with food; it is not a reflection of real-life situations or other methods. Skilled positive trainers would address chase behavior by observing the individual with whom they are working to find out what is most motivating for them. While this could be food, which should most certainly be valuable enough to compete with chasing something, many dogs who are motivated to chase are highly reinforced by toys or other activities.
Is balanced really better?
The study suggests e-collars may be appropriate when used by expert trainers, a common argument in favor of their use. However, even with regulation—which might reduce harm—this still condones and allows the continued use of tools that we know inflict pain, fear, and discomfort. While some view regulation as a step forward, it presents a slippery slope. Ultimately, you accept the use of methods that cause harm to dogs or you don’t. As we mention above, this paper sanctions their use.
There is no evidence proving that aversives are necessary, even in “extreme” cases. This means they are elective. Why should dogs be forced into compliance through fear or pain when positive, force-free methods are effective and more humane? The debate shouldn’t center on whether aversive methods work or how quickly they produce results, but rather on the impact these methods have on a dog’s well-being. All dogs can thrive with positive reinforcement when done correctly. Positive reinforcement works on dogs—it’s us who find it challenging.
As dog trainer Zak George wrote in a recent social media post:
“We are at a tipping point. It’s time to be crystal clear about the future of the dog training industry: we either align with established, modern welfare ethics or we don’t. While we’ve seen incremental progress, it’s time for the modern dog training community to make the final leap forward. We need consistency with groups like the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB) and their counterparts worldwide, who have provided specific guidance based on evidence that shows how aversive methods impact both mental and physical health.”
We should more closely examine systemic issues of how we view and treat nonhuman animals as a whole. Until there is a greater focus on ethical values and animal well-being, this discussion unfortunately remains incomplete. But one thing is clear: It’s time for us to reject and speak out against outdated practices.
