Unlocking Animal Happiness
Flemish Dogs Benefit from Shift to Positive Reinforcement: Aversive Techniques Including Electric Collars Eliminated
The ban on electric collars in Flanders, which is set to begin in January 2027, will potentially impact approximately 560,000 dogs living in the region. This measure, driven by scientific research and recommendations from the Flemish Animal Welfare Council, represents a shift towards more humane training methods. The prohibition not only encourages the use of positive reinforcement techniques but also enhances the welfare of dogs, fostering healthier relationships between pets and their owners.
560,000 Animals
560,000 Dogs
—
The ban on electric collars potentially affects 560,000 dogs residing in Flanders.
Transitioning to Reward-Based Training
Scientific Evidence Favors Reward-Based Training Over Aversive Techniques
Historically, aversive training methods, such as electric collars, have been commonly used, especially in police and military dog training, Including in Flanders. [1] However, recent studies and expert opinions [2] suggest that reward-based training is not only as effective [3] but potentially more efficient and humane than aversive techniques.[4] Reward-based training, which reinforces desired behaviors with rewards, has fewer negative impacts on the dog’s welfare and the human-dog relationship.[5]
Contrarily, aversive techniques have been linked to heightened aggression, stress, and behavioral problems in dogs, and decreased owner engagement.[6]
Electric collars, while effective at suppressing unwanted behavior, can lead to significant welfare concerns, including habituation[7], pain, fear, aggression[8], and phobias. These collars also increase stress-related physiological parameters like saliva cortisol and heart rate.[9] Even without receiving further shocks after three months of electric collar use, dogs experience lasting behavioral changes[10] and a damaged trust bond with their owners, highlighting the severe impact on their welfare. [11]
The Ban on Electric Collars
Reflecting a progressive shift towards positive reinforcement training methods, Flanders implemented a ban on electric collars in 2022. The Flemish Animal Welfare Code [12] stipulates that no one may deploy, affix, or market a collar capable of administering electric shocks to a dog or cat, except for collars designed for use with invisible fences. This ban will take effect on January 1, 2027[13].
The reasoning behind the ban is the controversial use of electric collars for dogs. [14] [15]:
‘The use of electric collars for dogs is often controversial. On one hand, there are trainers and behavior therapists who have no objection to using an electric collar to address behavioral issues. On the other hand, there are opponents who argue that the pain and fear caused by the shock are inhumane, unethical, and unnecessary (…). The use of electric training and anti-barking collars on a dog poses a significant risk to the dog’s well-being, both in the short and long term. (…) However, there has been a global trend in recent years to discourage aversion training and promote reward-based training instead. (…)’
The Flemish Animal Welfare Council also advised a ban on the use of electric collars, with the exception of collars linked to invisible fences. The Council further recommends prohibiting not only the use but also the sale and purchase of electric collars.
This ban aligns with the attitude at the European level. Several European countries have already implemented a ban or restrictions on the use of electric collars. The Flemish government decided to implement the ban starting from January 1, 2027, providing a transition period for current private and professional users of electric collars.
[1] Techniques are generally classified as aversive if they involve anything that the dog may perceive as physically or emotionally uncomfortable ( I.J. Makowska, ‘Review of dog training methods: welfare, learning ability and currents standards’ (BCSPCA, December 2018, 8).
[2] Armed forces and police can train and deploy dogs effectively using reward-based methods, without electric shock equipment.
[3] A study found that the use of electric collars is not more efficient than training dogs without such a collar (J.J. Cooper et al., ‘The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training’, 2014, 9/9 PLoS One 1-12).
[4] Another study demonstrates that training with positive reinforcement is more effective in modifying the intended behavior of the dog, poses fewer risks to the welfare of the dog’s welfare, and to the quality of the human-dog relationship (L. China, D.S. Mills and J.J. Cooper, ‘Efficacy of dog training with and without remote electronic collars vs a focus on positive reinforcement’, 2020, 7 Front. Vet. Sci. 1-11).
[5] C. Arhant et al., ‘Behavior of smaller and larger dogs: effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behavior and level of engagement in activities with the dog’ (2010) 123 Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 131-142; E.J. Blackwell et al., ‘The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs’ (2008) 3/5 Journal of Veterinary Behavior 207-217 ; R.A. Casey et al., ‘Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) : occurrence in different contexts and risk factors’ (2014) 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52-63; J.J. Cooper et al. (n 3); M.E. Herron et al., ‘Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours (2009) 117/1-2 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47-54 ; E. Hiby et al., ‘Dog training methods : their use, effectiveness and interaction with behavior and welfare’ (2004) 13 Animal Welfare 63-69 and S. Deldalle and F. Gaunet, ‘Effects of two training methods on stress-related behaviors of the dog (Canis familiaris) and on the dog-owner relationship’ (2014) 9/2 Journal of Veterinary Behavior 58-65.
[6] The reasons for this is multifaceted. Firstly, pain can induce aggression in dogs, further compounding behavioral issues. Secondly, coercive methods that merely suppress behavior without addressing the root causes are not effective in the long run. For instance, when a dog’s instinctive warning signals, such as growling or baring teeth, are suppressed through aversive techniques, it can lead to more severe outcomes. One potential result is that future attacks may occur without prior warning, increasing unpredictability and raising the risk of injury. Secondly, when a particular behavior like barking is suppressed, dogs may express their stress or discomfort in other, often more destructive ways, leading to compulsive or obsessive disorders. Moreover, the use of aversive techniques can lead to decreased owner engagement. When training is based on fear or pain, it may damage the relationship between the dog and the owner, making the dog less likely to engage positively with its owner (J.G. Fernandes et al., ‘Do aversive-based training methods actually comprise dog welfare?: A literature review’ (2017) 196 App. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1-12).
[7] There is a risk that a dog could become desensitized to electric shocks and stops responding. However this disensitization does not mean the dog’s welfare is unaffected. As the dog stops responding, the handler may be inclined to administer higher intensity shocks, further impairing the dog’s welfare.
[8] M. Schilder’s study showed differences in dogs trained with shocks versus control dogs. The former displayed lower ear positions and more tongue licking during training, and raised their front paws more often. The study concluded that these dogs were more stressed during training and associated their trainers and their commands with receiving shocks (M. Schilder and J. van der Borg, ‘Training dogs with the help of the shock collar: short and long-term behavioral effects’ (2004)).
[9] B. Beerda et al., ‘Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs’ (1998) 58/3 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 365-381. Parameters further increase when the shocks are unpredictable and uncontrollable (E. Schalke et al., ‘Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations (2007) 105 Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 369-380.
[10] 36% of dog owners using e-collars reported hearing the dog yelp the first time the shock was applied. 26% reported this behavior in later applications (DEFRA AW1402, 2013); 59% of dogs vocalize when an e-collar is used (Y. Salgirli et al., ‘Comparison of learning effects and stress between 3 different training methods (electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting signal) in Belgian Malinois Police Dogs’ (2012) 163/11 Revue Méd. Vét. 530-535.
[11] Ibid. DEFRA.
[12] Flemish Animal Welfare Code, Article 11.
[13] Article 86, 3° of the Flemish Animal Welfare Code delays the entry into force of Article 11 until 1 January 2027.
[14] Flemish Parliament, Explanatory Note.
[15] Ibid. Explanatory Note, 3.
