22/01/2025
Another fantastically written piece from Simon & his team.
On a very important topic
What’s Best for Dogs
Tomorrow, the Scottish Parliament will consider a decision with far-reaching consequences for dogs, their owners, livestock, and even wildlife. The proposed ban on e-collars, along with other tools such as prong collars, slip leads, head halters, and martingale collars, is not just about the tools themselves—it is about the philosophy behind dog training and how we balance the needs of dogs with our human ideologies. This is not a debate to take lightly, as it strikes at the heart of how we ensure the welfare of dogs in our care.
The Core Question: What is Best for the Dog?
At the centre of this debate should be one simple question: what is best for the dog? Sadly, this question is often overshadowed by rigid beliefs and personal agendas. Training methods, whether they include tools or not, should prioritise the individual dog’s needs, temperament, and safety—not human egos or ideologies. This principle must guide any discussion about banning training tools.
Tools as Part of a Balanced Approach
E-collars, prong collars, and other training tools are just that—tools. When used responsibly, by knowledgeable and experienced trainers, they can save lives. They are not a replacement for training but a means to achieve better communication and safety, especially with challenging dogs or in high-risk situations such as livestock chasing or aggression management.
That said, tools like e-collars should never be your first port of call. While I am firmly against the outright ban of e-collars, I also believe they should only be considered after other methods have been explored. Positive reinforcement should always be the starting point, as it builds trust, fosters learning, and encourages desired behaviours without introducing discomfort.
However, not every dog will respond to positive methods alone, and some situations—such as severe behavioural issues or life-threatening behaviours like chasing livestock—require more than a reward-based approach. This is where tools like e-collars may come into play. But let me be clear: e-collars are not a quick fix. They require skill, understanding, and a focus on the term correctly. When used properly, they can provide clear communication and guidance without causing unnecessary harm or distress. But they must always remain a carefully considered option, not the default solution.
The Ripple Effect: Where Does it End?
Although this proposed ban centres on e-collars, it will not end there. These kinds of legislative actions have a tendency to grow arms and legs, rolling over into other aspects of dog ownership, training, and sports. Once e-collars are banned, other tools will inevitably come under scrutiny. Prong collars, martingale collars, slip leads, head halters—these will likely be the next targets.
But it won’t stop with tools. Dog sports, too, will come into the firing line. Flyball, in particular, is a sport that could easily face calls for regulation or banning due to its association with injuries in dogs. With the intense physical demands of the sport, the potential for strains and injuries is higher, and it would make an easy target for those who fail to understand the joy and enrichment dogs gain from participating in sports. From there, it’s not far-fetched to imagine breed-specific legislation gaining momentum again, with working breeds or high-energy breeds facing bans because they are “difficult to manage.” This slippery slope puts more and more dogs—and their owners—at risk.
The focus of this debate must remain on the welfare of the dogs, but if bans like this are allowed to pass, we risk setting a precedent where emotion and ideology dictate policy, rather than evidence-based understanding and what is truly best for dogs.
The Reality of Positive-Only Training
There is no denying the benefits of positive reinforcement training. It is an essential foundation for building trust and teaching new behaviours. But the reality is that not all dogs can be trained solely through positive methods, especially when dealing with severe aggression, high prey drive, or reactivity.
Many trainers who advocate for positive-only methods find themselves unable to help certain dogs due to their refusal to use tools or methods they consider aversive. The tragic result? These dogs are deemed “untrainable,” sent to shelters, or euthanised. This is not a failure of the dogs—it is a failure of the system and the trainers who prioritise their beliefs over the welfare of the animals they are meant to help.
No trainer should take pride in a philosophy that leads to a dog’s death because their methods could not meet the dog’s needs.
The Consequences of a Blanket Ban
If the proposed ban is passed, the fallout could be devastating:
• Increased Behavioural Euthanasia: Many dogs, especially working breeds or those with high-drive or behavioural issues, will lose the chance for rehabilitation.
• Overcrowded Rescue Centres: Dogs surrendered because owners or trainers lack the tools to manage them will overwhelm already stretched rescues.
• Risk to Livestock and Wildlife: Without tools like e-collars, the ability to control dogs in open, rural areas will diminish, leading to more incidents of livestock worrying or wildlife harm.
• Harm to Owners and the Public: Large, reactive, or aggressive dogs may become more difficult to control, increasing the risk of bites or injuries.
• Erosion of Dog Sports and Breed Ownership: As bans expand, owners and enthusiasts of certain breeds or sports may find themselves under increasing pressure, limiting opportunities for dogs to thrive in outlets that suit their biological needs.
Shame on “Death Over Discomfort”
The notion of “death over discomfort” prioritises human ideals over the real needs of dogs. Training, by its nature, sometimes requires a degree of controlled discomfort—not to harm the dog, but to guide them away from dangerous or unwanted behaviours. Avoiding this for fear of criticism or ideological purity does a disservice to the dog. Choosing to avoid a tool because it might cause temporary discomfort while allowing a dog to escalate towards behaviours that lead to their death—whether through euthanasia or an avoidable accident—is an ethical failure.
As trainers, owners, and advocates, our responsibility is to the dogs. Their welfare, safety, and long-term happiness must come before any human belief system. A balanced trainer will use all the tools and methods available, combining positive reinforcement with corrective techniques when needed, to help each dog reach its full potential.
Moving Forward: A Call for Common Sense
Instead of a blanket ban, what we need is education and regulation. Ensure that tools like e-collars and prong collars are only used by trained professionals or under professional guidance. Set clear standards for their use to prevent misuse, but do not remove them from the hands of responsible trainers and owners who can use them to save lives and improve welfare.
It’s also vital to continue promoting positive reinforcement as the foundation of training. Start there. Try there. But recognise that not every dog or situation will adapt to purely positive methods. For those cases, let’s have the flexibility, knowledge, and skill to use tools when needed—not as a first step, but as part of a balanced approach that prioritises the dog’s welfare above all else.
To the lawmakers and those advocating for this ban, I urge you to step back and listen to the voices of experienced trainers, farmers, and dog owners. Understand the real-world implications of this decision, and ask yourselves: is this truly what is best for the dog?
Our dogs deserve better than to be caught in the crossfire of ideology. Let us put their welfare first. Always.
Please watch the video in the comments 🐾🐾
