Why some people insist e-collars and prong collars are okay
There are a few reasons certain trainers or owners promote these tools:
1. Personal success stories
Some trainers say they got results using them in the past. They may have also trained under mentors or schools of thought that value compliance more than emotional wellbeing.
2. Misunderstanding of force versus pain
Many proponents claim that properly applied pressure does not hurt the dog. They distinguish between pressure as information versus pain as punishment. In practice, however, the line is often very thin and hard to maintain reliably outside expert hands.
3. Belief in dominance or compulsion-based training
Some schools view dogs as needing firm control. In those models, aversive tools are seen as necessary. This view is increasingly at odds with modern science.
4. Lack of awareness of research
Evidence from animal behaviour science is not always well known among the general public or some trainers. People may simply be repeating what they were taught.
5. Marketing and simplification
Many collars are marketed as simple solutions to complex problems. That encourages people to think the tool is the answer rather than the underlying training and emotional state of the dog.
What research actually says about aversive collars
High quality research in canine behaviour and welfare shows consistent trends:
1. Aversive tools increase stress and negative emotional states
Studies measuring cortisol, behaviour responses, and body language show that tools which rely on pain or fear are associated with:
Increased stress
Avoidance behaviours
Tension and anxiety
Less stable learning states
This is true even when trainers claim they are being used “correctly”.
For example, multiple peer reviewed studies report that dogs trained with choke chains, prong collars, or e-collars show more behaviour indicating stress than dogs trained with positive reinforcement. Many of these differences persist during training and outside it.
2. Learning and memory are impaired under stress
A dog in a high arousal or fear state is less capable of learning new behaviours or retaining what it has learned. This is supported by decades of research in animal cognition.
3. Risk of pain, misuse, and escalation is high in the real world
Even experienced handlers can unintentionally apply too much pressure, leave collars too tight, or use them in emotional states where the dog perceives pain rather than information. For inexperienced owners, proper use is extremely unlikely.
4. Behaviour problems often worsen with aversive tools
In reactive dogs especially, aversive force often heightens vigilance and avoidance, which can look like stubbornness or worse reactivity.
What about e-collars?
Electric collars have specific issues:
They activate through an electric stimulus.
Even low stimulation levels are designed to create discomfort. Some people argue a dog gets used to it, but it is not the same as communication.
Research finds that dogs can:
show avoidance behaviours
become hypervigilant before stimulation
associate the environment with discomfort rather than learning a cue
There are very limited scenarios (such as vocal nuisance control at long distance in high distraction hunting contexts) where some trainers use e-collars with expertise, but even in those cases the welfare cost is measurable.
Most behavioural science organisations (including veterinary behaviourists and humane societies) do not recommend e-collars in pet dog training.
What about prong collars?
Prong collars pinch the neck. Some proponents say that the pressure is distributed so it does not hurt. But the mechanism is a physical pinch on the neck area, which has a high concentration of sensitive tissues.
Studies and professional guidelines conclude:
Pinch causes stress behaviours
Owners often tighten them too much
Dogs may associate the pinch with environmental triggers rather than the desired behaviour
There is no convincing science showing that prong collars lead to better long term learning or emotional wellbeing compared to positive reinforcement.
Why it feels like people defend these tools
Some owners and trainers defend aversive collars because:
They think the dog stops the behaviour quickly
They have not examined emotional impact
They work in situations where quick suppression is prioritised over welfare
They are not trained in modern humane methods
This can create a culture where aversive tools are normalized, even when they are not the best option.
What does humane, science-based training recommend?
Professional organisations supporting evidence based methods generally agree on these points:
1. Use tools that communicate rather than punish.
Reward-based training, markers like clickers or verbal praise, and shaping behaviours produce more reliable, less stressful outcomes.
2. Avoid pain-based or fear-based methods.
Where training fails, it is often because the dog is stressed, not because the method was positive or negative.
3. Behaviour problems are usually emotional rather than obedience issues.
A frightened or anxious dog needs support and desensitisation, not pressure.
4. Any tool that risks harm or fear without clear benefit should be avoided, especially by non-professionals.
So what is my opinion?
I do not recommend e-collars or prong collars for use by the general public.
Here is why:
They carry a significant risk of harm, especially with use by inexperienced owners.
The science does not support better outcomes compared to positive reinforcement methods.
They can worsen emotional wellbeing, even if the behaviour appears suppressed.
Behaviour is complex and emotional, and aversive pressure often addresses only the behaviour, not the underlying cause.
In rare, highly controlled cases with expert supervision, some tools may be considered as part of a comprehensive plan, but that is very different from general or casual use.
Positive reinforcement based approaches are:
safer
more humane
supported by research
effective at reducing fear and reactivity when training is structured properly
What to do instead
For behaviour problems like reactivity, noise fear, or leash frustration:
Focus on emotional foundations (safety, prediction, calmness)
Use desensitisation and counter conditioning
Build skills gradually
Involve a behaviour professional if things are severe
Avoid tools that cause pain or fear
People promote aversive collars for historical, cultural, or belief reasons, but that is not the same as scientific support. The evidence points strongly toward positive based methods for training and behaviour modification, with welfare and learning capacity as guiding priorities.