Are We Confusing Freedom With Distance?

One of the strongest arguments used in favour of mixed method training is prey drive.

It usually sounds something like this: “You cannot reward your way out of genetics. My dog values chasing a deer, sheep or rabbit more than any food I can offer, so I need a consequence powerful enough to stop them.”

There is some truth in the first part of that argument. Predatory behaviour is intrinsically reinforcing and has a strong genetic component. Different breeds have been selectively bred for different parts of the predatory sequence: orienting, stalking, chasing, grabbing and so on. Once a dog is fully committed to a chase, presenting a piece of food may be completely irrelevant.

But that does not automatically establish that aversive training is therefore necessary. It simply tells us that the behaviour is highly motivated.

The other persuasive argument is freedom. It is often framed as:

“My dog can have a proper life because the e-collar gives them freedom. Without it, they would spend their life on a lead.”

Emotionally, that is compelling. But it bundles several different ideas together. Off lead access is one form of freedom. It is not the definition of welfare. A dog's welfare also includes the ability to make choices, explore, sniff, forage, play, disengage, communicate normally and move through the environment without anticipating pain or discomfort.

So the real comparison is not:

e-collar = freedom versus reward based training = restriction

It is a trade off between different kinds of freedom and different kinds of restraint.

A long line may limit geographical freedom while still allowing considerable behavioural choice. An e-collar may allow greater physical range while creating behavioural control through the possibility of an aversive consequence.

We manage dogs constantly because they live in environments full of hazards. We use leads beside roads, fences around gardens, baby gates in houses and long lines around livestock or wildlife. Nobody argues that a Labrador should have the “freedom” to cross a motorway because preventing them from doing so restricts autonomy.

The more useful question is: How much freedom can this particular dog safely have while maintaining good welfare for the dog, other animals and the public?

Not: How do I make unlimited off lead access possible at any cost?

“Trained not to chase” is not the same as removing prey drive

There is another inconsistency in the prey-drive argument.

If someone says: “I need the e-collar because otherwise I cannot guarantee that my dog won't chase sheep,” then the dog's motivation to chase has not disappeared.

The training is being used to inhibit the behaviour. That is different. Behaviour also does not generalise perfectly across every context, every level of arousal and every situation. A dog that responds reliably in training is not biologically incapable of chasing. I would be very uncomfortable using another animal's welfare as the test of whether behavioural inhibition will hold under extreme motivation.

Freedom and agency are not the same thing

Imagine two dogs.

Dog A walks through woodland on a 10-metre long line. They choose where to sniff, stop to investigate scents, change direction, forage, watch wildlife and interact with their owner. There are places they physically cannot reach.

Dog B is completely off lead, but has learned that certain choices may produce an aversive stimulus delivered remotely.

It is not self evident that Dog B has the richer welfare experience simply because there is no visible lead attached.

Physical freedom describes where an animal can go. Agency is broader. It includes the ability to make meaningful choices and exert some control over what happens to them. A dog can therefore have enormous physical range while still being heavily behaviourally controlled.Equally, a dog on a long line can have considerable agency within sensible physical boundaries. Lead status is a poor proxy for welfare.

What does a “good life” actually mean?

I think we need to challenge the assumption that a good life for a dog is defined by whether there is a piece of material attached to them. There are dogs walking kilometres off lead who have very little real agency because they are being constantly commanded, corrected and controlled.

And there are dogs on long lines having extraordinarily rich walks full of sniffing, exploration, choice and interaction.

The absence of a lead does not automatically equal freedom. And the presence of a lead does not automatically equal poor welfare. The more useful aim is to give each dog as much safe choice, agency and opportunity as possible.

The ethical question

For me, this brings the discussion back to the same question we should ask whenever we use an aversive method:

What specific benefit does the aversive component provide that cannot reasonably be achieved through reinforcement, management, environmental control and appropriate outlets for the dog's behaviour and does that benefit justify the additional welfare risk?

The argument does not become stronger simply because the behaviour is genetically  driven. Prey drive is real. It is powerful. It can be extraordinarily difficult to compete with.

But recognising those facts does not obligate us to define unlimited off-lead access as the ultimate measure of a good life. Sometimes good welfare means allowing a dog more freedom.

Sometimes it means placing limits around behaviour that could harm the dog or somebody else.And perhaps the most important distinction of all is this:

A lead is visible restraint. That does not mean an aversive contingency is not restraint simply because you cannot see it.