Why I don't use E-Collars
- Caryn Self Sullivan, PhD

- 6 days ago
- 3 min read
The scientific consensus regarding the use of electric "shock" collars (often termed e-collars or electronic training collars) is that they pose significant risks to animal welfare and are no more effective than reward-based training methods for changing behavior.
Major veterinary and behavioral organizations now actively discourage or call for bans on these devices, citing evidence of both physical and psychological "fallout."

The Core Scientific Findings
Research over the last two decades has focused on two primary metrics: efficacy (does it work?) and welfare (does it hurt or stress the dog?).
No Superiority in Efficacy: Peer-reviewed studies, including head-to-head trials, have found that dogs trained with reward-based methods achieve the same or better results than those trained with e-collars, even for difficult tasks like off-leash recall or livestock chasing.
Elevated Stress Response: Dogs trained with e-collars show significant physiological markers of stress, including elevated cortisol levels (the stress hormone). These elevated levels often persist even in non-training environments, suggesting a long-term decrease in the dog's quality of life.
Behavioral Fallout: The use of "aversives" (punishment-based tools) is strongly correlated with an increase in fear-based aggression, phobias, and a breakdown in the dog-handler bond. Dogs may associate the pain of the shock with anything in their environment—including the owner or a passing stranger—rather than their own behavior.
Consensus from Major Organizations
The shift in the scientific community has led to formal position statements from the world's leading veterinary and behavior authorities:
Organization | Position Summary |
American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB) | States that e-collars pose significant welfare risks and "should not be recommended for any training context" (2025) |
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) | Recommends only reward-based methods and states that aversive training carries risks of aggression and fear (2021) |
British Veterinary Association (BVA) | Supports a complete ban on the sale and use of electric pulse collars (2024) |
European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology (ESVCE) | Advocates for a ban on electronic training devices across Europe due to welfare concerns |
Key Research & Citations
The following peer-reviewed studies form the backbone of the current consensus:
China, L., Mills, D. S., & Cooper, J. J. (2020): This study compared e-collar training with reward-based training for recall. It found that reward-based training was more effective at improving general obedience and that the e-collar provided no additional benefit.
Cooper, J. J., et al. (2014): A large-scale study that found dogs trained with e-collars displayed more stress-related behaviors (lip licking, yawning, tensing) and had higher cortisol levels than dogs trained with positive reinforcement.
Ziv, G. (2017): A comprehensive meta-analysis of 17 studies concluding that aversive training methods (including shock) jeopardize both the physical and mental health of dogs and are less effective than reward-based methods.
Schilder, M. B., & van der Borg, J. A. (2004): One of the foundational studies showing that shocked dogs associate the handler and the training environment with pain, leading to long-term anxiety and "learned helplessness."
Masson, S., et al. (2018): Published by the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology, this review found no evidence that e-collars are necessary even for high-level "emergency" training, like preventing a dog from running into traffic.
Summary
While proponents sometimes argue that "low-level stimulation" is merely a tap or a nudge, the scientific community treats the device as a source of unpredictable pain or discomfort. Because dogs cannot consistently predict when the "tap" will occur, they often enter a state of chronic stress. Consequently, the consensus is that the potential for psychological damage outweighs any perceived convenience.




Comments