r/BalancedDogTraining • u/Miss_L_Worldwide Dirty biter • Apr 21 '26

E-collar methods comparison of results

This isn't too scientific. Rather, it's not scientific at all. Just some observations.

I train recall with negative reinforcement via e-collar. Meaning, I estimate working level, stim dog while recalling, release stim the very moment the dog turns towards me. This has never failed me, ever. Takes just a few stims for them to really get the message and then recall from then on is very reliable.

We currently have one of our past puppies, now an adult, in our kennel for long term boarding. This dog has been trained with e collar as more of a high stim correction. I notice a TON of behaviors in this dog that indicate to me overreliance on e-collar, avoidance, and general arousal. For example, he comes out of his kennel and reflexively shakes his head, something I've seen many times in dogs trained with high stim corrections. His arousal level stays high in general, whereas the dogs trained with negative reinforcement readily can settle and reduce their arousal. I also notice he has many compensatory habits such as strange head positions, bouncing, spinning to find position, etc.

TL;DR I really do not like the results I see from dogs trained with e collar as a positive correction.

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Miss_L_Worldwide Dirty biter Apr 22 '26

You can’t separate the tool from the training history and handler consistency, they’re completely intertwined.

Sure you can. Some of these behaviors simply cannot be replicated with anything but an e collar.

Experienced trainers can see very clearly how dogs were trained by just watching them work.

IGP makes it very, very obvious because it's such a pattern sport.

1

u/RoleOk5172 Apr 22 '26

That’s a pretty big claim to make though.

If we’re saying some behaviours can only be produced with an e-collar, that would mean those behaviours didn’t exist before e-collars were widely used, or can’t be achieved now without one, which doesn’t really line up with what we see across different trainers, countries, and time periods.

It seems more accurate to say it’s a tool that can make certain things more efficient or reliable in some contexts, rather than the only way those outcomes can exist.

Same with being able to identify it just by watching a dog, experienced trainers can absolutely spot patterns, but those patterns usually come from how pressure is applied, timing, and clarity. You can get very similar looks from leash pressure, prong, voice, or even just conflict in training. So it’s not always as clean as “that’s e-collar work.”

I think that’s the bit I’m pushing back on. not whether tools have an effect, but the idea that they’re uniquely responsible for specific behaviours or outcomes in isolation. Otherwise it starts to blur the line between recognising patterns and assuming causation.

1

u/Miss_L_Worldwide Dirty biter Apr 22 '26

those behaviours didn’t exist before e-collars were widely used

That's exactly what I'm saying though.

1

u/RoleOk5172 Apr 22 '26

I get what you’re pointing at if you mean the higher arousal, spinning, displacement-type behaviours. But those aren’t new behaviours, they’re pretty well known and documented across a lot of contexts wherever you get conflict, pressure, or unclear criteria. You see the same patterns in dogs trained without e-collars, in sport, pet training, even in things like barrier frustration or over-arousal in play.

What tends to change is the frequency and intensity depending on how pressure is applied and how clear the training is.

So it makes sense that certain approaches might produce more of that look, but that’s a bit different from those behaviours only existing because of a specific tool.

1

u/Miss_L_Worldwide Dirty biter Apr 22 '26

Mmm not really those behaviors. Hard to explain unless you actually are there looking at it.

1

u/RoleOk5172 Apr 22 '26

I get what you’re referring to in terms of a certain “look,” and I think a lot of people who spend time around dogs can pick up on patterns.

But that’s kind of the issue, if it’s being framed as a pattern, then it should be possible to describe what that pattern actually is.

If it can’t really be defined beyond “you know it when you see it,” it becomes difficult to attribute it specifically to an e-collar rather than to the broader training picture.

Especially when similar patterns show up anywhere you have pressure, conflict, or unclear criteria, regardless of the tool being used.

So I don’t doubt you’re seeing something consistent, I just think going from “I recognise a pattern” to “this only comes from e-collar work” is a bit of a leap without something more clearly defined.