Barks Blog

by Niki Tudge

When critics argue against the use of electronic shock collars, proponents often claim the tools are perfectly benign if used “correctly,” yet there is actually nothing surprising about the severe risks they pose.

In fact, a collective look across the internet at the manufacturers’ own instruction manuals, safety disclosures, and legal guidelines reveals a laundry list of warnings that openly acknowledge the inherent dangers of these devices.

Far from being harmless, the consumer guides and behavioral literature consistently highlight that putting a shock collar on a pet opens the door to a host of serious physical and psychological complications.

Based on manufacturer safety sheets and veterinary data, these acknowledged dangers include:

• Pressure Necrosis: Prolonged contact from the metal probes restricts blood flow, potentially leading to localized tissue breakdown, severe decubitus ulcers (essentially painful bedsores), weeping sores, and secondary bacterial infections on the neck.
• Redirected Aggression: Because the delivery of an aversive stimulus causes sudden pain or distress, animals frequently direct a new, defensive aggressive response toward handlers, bystanders, or other nearby pets.
• Misassociation and Superstitious Fear: Animals often fail to connect the shock to their own behavior, instead pairing the pain with whatever happens to be in their field of view at that moment—such as a passing child, a sound, or the handler—triggering long-term phobias.
• Suppressed Learning Capacity: The spikes in stress hormones (like cortisol) caused by electronic stimulation actively shut down the brain’s ability to process information, causing confusion and a decreased ability to learn alternative, desired behaviors.
• Masking the Root Problem: The device simply suppresses the outward symptom of distress (like barking or lunging) through fear of punishment, leaving the underlying anxiety or frustration entirely unaddressed and waiting to erupt elsewhere, increasing ‘unpredictable’ bite risks down the line.

Theoretically, a shock collar influences a pet’s behavior through the principles of operant conditioning, especially aversive control.

Let’s look at a breakdown of the underlying principles.

Mechanics of Behavior Suppression

1. Positive Punishment

Positive Punishment is the primary mechanism people think of when using an electronic collar to stop unwanted behavior (such as barking, jumping, or crossing a boundary line).

• The Principle: In Applied Behavior Analysis, “positive” means adding a stimulus, and “punishment” means a consequence that decreases the future likelihood of the behavior. An aversive is also defined as something a pet will work to escape or avoid; nothing fun or kind here.
• How it works:
  1. The dog engages in a “problematic” behavior (e.g., barking).
  2. The shock is immediately delivered (an aversive stimulus is added to the environment).
  3. If effective, the frequency of barking decreases in the future.

2. Negative Reinforcement

The Negative Reinforcement Principle is widely used in “escape/avoidance” training paradigms, such as teaching a recall (coming when called) or boundary training (using invisible fences).

• The Principle: “Negative” means removing a stimulus, and “reinforcement” means a consequence that increases the future likelihood of a behavior.
• How it works (Escape):
  1. The trainer issues a command and simultaneously turns on a continuous shock.
  2. The dog performs the desired behavior (e.g., runs toward the trainer).
  3. The trainer terminates the shock (the aversive stimulus is removed).
  4. Because performing the behavior successfully escaped the pain/discomfort, the dog is more likely to perform that behavior quickly next time it feels the same pain or discomfort.
• How it works (Avoidance): Over time, the dog learns to perform the behavior in response to a warning signal (like a beep or a verbal cue) to prevent the shock from turning on. So the pet behaves in necessary ways to escape or avoid discomfort or pain.

3. Conditioned Aversive Stimuli

Shock collars, bark collars, and boundary fencing feature a tone or vibration setting that precedes the electrical shock. Through the process of respondent (Classical) conditioning, a neutral stimulus (the tone) becomes a conditioned aversive stimulus.

• How it works: The neutral tone is repeatedly paired with the unconditioned aversive stimulus (the shock).
• Eventually, the tone alone elicits the same physiological stress responses and behavioral suppression as the shock itself, because the dog has learned the tone predicts pain.

The Side Effects and Nuances of Behavior Suppression

From a strict Applied Behavior Analysis perspective, while aversive control can immediately suppress a behavior, it carries well-documented behavioral side effects that complicate its efficacy.

Suppressed behavior is not behavior appropriately modified; it is suppressed via the prediction and onset of pain or discomfort.

1. Conditioned Emotional Response (CER): When a pet is shocked in a specific environment or in response to certain stimuli—such as the handler, other dogs, or a particular location—these environmental elements can become unintentionally associated with pain or fear. This association often leads to generalized anxiety, fear, or avoidance of the handler or the training setting. 
   • For example, a dog who is repeatedly shocked for proximity to a boundary fence, seeing children ride by, can associate the children with pain.
2. Counter-Aggression/Elevated Aggression: Intense aversive stimuli can trigger reflexive aggression.
   • For example, a sudden shock while a dog is looking at another dog can become linked to that sight (classically conditioned), transforming a neutral or mildly excited reaction into defensive aggression.
3. Operant Extinction of “Warning” Behaviors: Punishment might suppress outward signs of a behavior (like growling) without addressing the underlying cause (such as fear). This suppression can temporarily make the behavior “disappear,” but the dog may then escalate directly to more intense behaviors (such as biting) without any prior warning.

In reality, a shock collar relies entirely on changing behavior by presenting or removing an aversive stimulus, thereby altering the future frequency of operant behaviors by leveraging the organism’s natural drive to escape or avoid discomfort or pain.

But WHY would we choose to teach a behavior using discomfort and/or pain, when we can teach a pet new, more appropriate behaviors by leveraging their desire to work, earn, play, engage and achieve positive reinforcement?

From Intention to Understanding

For much of modern history, dog care was shaped by a simple assumption: good outcomes required control. Calmness was defined by stillness. Cooperation was defined by compliance. When behavior stopped, the problem was considered solved.

What we did not always ask was how the dog felt in the process.

As our understanding of dogs has evolved, this gap has become impossible to ignore. Research in behavior, neuroscience and learning has shown us that dogs are not passive recipients of care. They are active learners with nervous systems that respond to safety, threat, predictability and choice.

All of our work needs to be approached with Kindness.

Welfare-Based Partnership

While behavior can be a reflection of how dogs are coping with their world, Kindness requires recognizing that outward behavior does not always reflect inner experience.

Over the last thirty years, the sciences of ethology (animal behavior), neurobiology, and cognition have exploded. We now know that dogs have the cognitive capacity roughly equivalent to a 2.5-year-old human child. We know they experience optimism, pessimism, grief, and joy. We understand that the methods we use to handle them physically change the architecture of their brains.

True kindness requires understanding how fear interferes with learning, how pressure accumulates, and how trust is either built or eroded through everyday interactions.

Let’s Be Kind! Let’s Be Welfare-Based Educators!

---

Resources

1. Pressure Necrosis

• Manufacturer Evidence: PetSafe® / Radio Systems Corporation In-Ground Fence™ Owner’s Manual explicitly warns: A receiver collar worn for too long or made too tight on your pet’s neck may cause skin damage, ranging from redness to pressure ulcers.
• Legal Settlements: Legal settlements and consumer protection cases (including a $1.9 million settlement against major manufacturers) directly involve documented physical injuries, including severe localized skin damage and lesions from contact points.

2. Redirected Aggression

• Scientific Study: Herron, M.E., Shofer, F.S., & Reisner, I.R. (2009). “Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors.” Journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117, 47-54.
  • The Findings: This hallmark study demonstrated that utilizing aversive, punishment-based tools like electronic collars frequently provokes a defensive aggressive response. In this study, several owners reported that aversive techniques directly triggered or exacerbated aggressive responses from the dog.

3. Misassociation and Superstitious Fear

• Scientific Study: Schilder, M.B., & van der Borg, J.A. (2004). “Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85(3-4), 319-334.
  • The Findings: This landmark study showed that dogs learn to associate the sudden pain of a shock not with their own behavior, but with the immediate environment, the presence of the handler, or external cues. The shocked dogs showed significantly lower ear and tail positions, increased lip-licking, and persistent stress behaviors both during training and when walking freely in the location where the shock occurred.

4. Increased Cortisol Levels

• Scientific Study: Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J., Ott, S., & Jones-Baade, R. (2007). “Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2(1), 1-6.
  • Findings: This study tracked salivary cortisol levels (the primary stress hormone). Shocks delivered with poor or unpredictable timing resulted in massive, prolonged spikes in cortisol.

5. Welfare Concerns

• Scientific Study: Cooper, J.J., Cracknell, N., Hardiman, J., Wright, H., & Mills, D.S. (2014). “The welfare consequences and efficacy of training dogs with remote electronic collars as compared to reward based training.” PLoS ONE, 9(9), e102722.
  • The Findings: This study (commissioned by the UK government) concluded there is no consistent benefit to be gained from e-collar training but greater welfare concerns compared with positive reward based training.
• Veterinary Position: The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) Humane Dog Training Position Statement confirms that aversive training methods have a damaging effect on both animal welfare and the human-animal bond.

---

About the Author

Niki Tudge – MBA, PCBC-A, CABC, CDBC

As the founder and President of The Pet Professional Guild, DogNostics Education, and The DogSmith, Niki Tudge brings substantial leadership experience to the pet industry. She has published numerous articles on dog training and behavior, and her businesses have been featured in publications such as the New York Times.

Niki’s professional credentials include AABP-Professional Dog Trainer, AABP-Professional Dog Behavior Consultant, and both PCBC-A and PCT-A accreditation through the Pet Professional Accreditation Board. She also holds diplomas in Animal Behavior Technology and Canine Behavior Science & Technology from the Companion Animal Science Institute.

Combining her industry expertise with a strong business foundation, Niki holds a business degree and an MBA from Oxford Brookes University. She is also a certified Six Sigma Black Belt, an HCITB TS1, TS2 & TS3 certified people trainer, a Certified Facilitator, a Certified Transformation Specialist, and a Project Manager.