Bangura (2026) Aversive Dog Training Policy Library

Foreword

The peer-reviewed welfare research on aversive dog training equipment and aversive handling techniques has been consistent for years. The international veterinary profession reached a formal consensus position in June 2024. The problem is not the evidence. The problem is that the evidence has not been pulled together in one place where practitioners, guardians, and policy makers can see how thoroughly it converges. This paper exists to close that gap. Independent research groups, working in different countries, using different populations, methodologies, and outcome measures, have repeatedly found the same pattern: aversive control is not necessary, it does not produce training outcomes superior to reward-based methods, and it comes with welfare costs that reward-based methods do not. The change this paper recommends, the kind already in place in Wales, Switzerland, Germany, France, Australia, and a growing list of other jurisdictions, does not start in a legislative chamber. It starts with one practitioner, in one location, talking to the guardians in their world.

How to Use This Paper

The paper works two ways at once. It can be read straight through as a sustained argument, and it can be returned to as a reference document. Table 1 (the quick-reference welfare evidence summary), Table 2 (nociception and pain neuroscience), Table 3 (mechanical injury and neck-pressure equipment), Table 4 (threat circuitry under controllability and predictability), and Table 5 (the comparative jurisdictional summary) are written for repeat reference, not single-pass reading. Reading paths are tailored by audience: pet guardians and clients new to the material, trainers and behavior consultants newer to the underlying science, experienced practitioners and veterinary behaviorists, and policy advocates and legislative readers. Practitioners are welcome to read, cite, share, and build on the material in their own work.

Executive Summary

The United States should adopt animal welfare policy banning the sale and use of aversive training equipment for dogs. The equipment in question is electronic collars in remote, bark-activated, and containment variants; prong or pinch collars; choke collars (also called choke chains or slip collars); and citronella and scentless-air spray collars. Ultrasonic and audible-tone variants are addressed under professional standards of practice rather than under the equipment-prohibition framework, as detailed in Section 10. Alongside that prohibition, the United States should adopt a substantive force-free model state standard of practice for commercial dog training and behavior modification, drawing on Linda Michaels’ Hierarchy of Dog Needs and Best Force-Free Practices (Michaels, 2022) as a leading reference framework, enforced through state licensure of trainers and behavior consultants.

The case rests on a definition. When an aversive piece of equipment or an aversive handling technique reduces a behavior, it is functioning as positive punishment. When a behavior increases because performing it terminates, avoids, or prevents an unpleasant event, it is functioning as negative reinforcement. Both mechanisms require the stimulus to function as an aversive event for the dog. Welfare costs include stress-related behavior, conflict behaviors, suppressed body language, conditioned emotional responses to cues and context, negative affective bias, and, in some studies, elevated cortisol. For neck-pressure equipment, the costs additionally include peer-reviewed mechanical effects: elevated intraocular pressure during ordinary pulling (Pauli et al., 2006), neck pressures in injury-relevant ranges (Carter et al., 2020; Hunter et al., 2019), and severe ischemic brain damage in a peer-reviewed case report following a punitive choke-chain hanging technique (Grohmann et al., 2013).

Cooper et al. (2014) and China, Mills, and Cooper (2020) ran controlled studies showing that dogs trained without electronic collars achieve outcomes equal to or better than dogs trained with them. Two senior fear-conditioning researchers whose work has been cited to justify electronic collar use, Dr. Luiz Pessoa (corresponding author of Limbachia et al., 2021) and Dr. David Knight (corresponding author of Wood et al., 2014), each independently confirmed in written correspondence that their research does not support treating predictable, controllable aversive stimulation as neurologically neutral or welfare-benign. Twenty-seven enacted jurisdictions across Europe, Australia, Quebec, Latin America, the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, and several US states have legislated against aversive dog training equipment in some combination, with the longest-running comprehensive bans now operating for more than fifteen years without producing peer-reviewed evidence of public-safety harm attributable to prohibition.

1. Introduction: The Wrong Question and the Right One

Debates about aversive training equipment and aversive training methods almost always get trapped inside the wrong question. The wrong question is whether these tools and methods work. The right question is how they work, what welfare costs come with that mechanism, whether those costs are necessary, and whether broad public access to such devices and methods is justified when safer alternatives exist. Efficacy alone does not establish welfare neutrality, necessity, or ethical justification. The argument that follows applies to all aversive training equipment and all aversive handling techniques as a single, unified category, because the international veterinary and welfare consensus already treats these tools and methods this way. The mechanism of action across electronic, mechanical, and confrontational modalities is the same: positive punishment or negative reinforcement via an aversive event.

2. The Mechanism Is Aversive Control

In behavior analysis, an aversive stimulus is defined by its function, not by its label or its appearance. A stimulus is aversive when its presentation decreases the future probability of the behavior it follows (positive punishment) or when its removal, avoidance, or prevention increases the future probability of the behavior that produces that outcome (negative reinforcement). This functional definition applies identically to electrical stimulation, mechanical pinch, neck constriction, verbal threat, physical correction, or handling confrontation. No vocabulary choice eliminates that functional requirement. Calling the electronic pulse a tap or a signal, calling the prong collar a communication tool, calling the choke chain a training collar, or calling the alpha roll a boundary setting, does not change what the dog’s nervous system is experiencing. Subsections cover the intensity dial as proof of mechanism, the barely-perceptible contradiction, the limits of human self-testing as a welfare assessment, and why videos of engaged dogs do not disprove the underlying contingency.

3. The Welfare Evidence Is Convergent

Cooper, Cracknell, Hardiman, Wright, and Mills (2014) ran the methodologically strongest controlled comparison of electronic collar training to reward-based training for pet dogs referred for recall problems. Dogs trained with electronic collars showed more behavioral stress indicators than dogs trained without; reward-based training achieved outcomes equal to or better than electronic collar training. China, Mills, and Cooper (2020) re-analyzed the same dataset and reported superior outcomes for the reward-based group on multiple efficacy measures. Schilder and van der Borg (2004), Casey et al. (2021), Deldalle and Gaunet (2014), Vieira de Castro et al. (2019, 2020), Blackwell et al. (2008), Hiby et al. (2004), Rooney and Cowan (2011), Arhant et al. (2010), Herron et al. (2009), and Casey et al. (2014) collectively establish a convergent welfare signal across experimental, observational, survey, cognitive bias, attachment, and clinical referral methodologies. Subsections cover controlled studies, broader research on aversive training and canine welfare, the dissociation between behavioral and physiological stress markers, conditioned emotional responses and transfer of aversiveness, and cumulative exposure as a distinct welfare risk.

Table 1. Quick-reference summary of the convergent welfare and training-outcome evidence base. Full table reproduced in the Studies Playbook and in the Policy Paper PDF.

Back to document menu

4. Nociception, Mechanical Injury, Aversion, and the Real Welfare Standard

The welfare case against aversive training equipment does not rest on a claim that the tools cause tissue injury. Nociceptors are specialized primary afferent neurons that respond to stimuli capable of signalling actual or potential harm (Dubin and Patapoutian, 2010). They fire at intensities well below the threshold of actual tissue injury, because the system exists to warn the organism away from potentially damaging stimuli before damage occurs. The International Association for the Study of Pain defines pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage (Raja et al., 2020). For neck-pressure equipment specifically, peer-reviewed veterinary research adds a separate evidentiary layer: Carter, McNally, and Roshier (2020), Hunter, Blake, and De Godoy (2019), Pauli, Bentley, Diehl, and Miller (2006), and Grohmann, Dickomeit, Schmidt, and Kramer (2013). Subsections cover what aversive equipment actually engages, the documented physical effects of neck-pressure equipment, threat circuitry under controllability and predictability, and the compound schedule problem (why adding food does not subtract the aversive). Tables 2, 3, and 4 consolidate the nociception, mechanical injury, and threat circuitry literature respectively.

5. The Necessity Claim Fails

Where the necessity claim has been empirically tested under best-practice conditions, the tools produced welfare cost without producing better outcomes than reward-based methods. The trainers in Cooper (2014) and China (2020) were nominated by the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association as representing best practice; they did not produce better outcomes with the tools than without them. No peer-reviewed controlled study has demonstrated long-term superiority of prong or choke collars over reward-based alternatives in everyday pet training contexts. Johnson and Wynne (2024), frequently cited as evidence that electronic collars are necessary for predatory chasing problems, establishes narrow efficacy under specific experimental conditions and not necessity. Its protocol design has been challenged in the peer-reviewed literature by Bastos, Warren, and Krupenye (2025) and in the present author’s separately published methodological critique (Bangura, 2025, SSRN). Board-certified veterinary behaviorists treat the most severe canine aggression, reactivity, anxiety, and predatory cases without aversive equipment; the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists formalized this position in a December 2025 letter to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

6. Reactivity, Aggression, and Confrontational Handling: Where Aversive Approaches Compound Harm

Aversive-based training is especially concerning when used with reactivity and aggression, because reactivity and aggression usually occur in the presence of stimuli the dog already perceives as threatening. Adding an aversive event in that moment lands on top of an already activated emotional and physiological background, and the dog can associate the aversive not only with its own behavior but also with the trigger itself. Herron, Shofer, and Reisner (2009) report that confrontational handling techniques produced aggressive responses in a substantial percentage of dogs on whom they were attempted, including hitting or kicking (forty-three percent), the alpha roll (thirty-one percent), the dominance down (twenty-nine percent), and grabbing the jowls or scruff and shaking (twenty-six percent). Dogs presenting for aggression toward familiar people were significantly more likely to respond aggressively to the alpha roll and to yelling no than dogs presenting for other complaints. Subsections cover suppression versus resolution, the Herron finding on confrontational handling, and the mechanism of compounded harm.

7. Professional and Regulatory Consensus

On June 14, 2024, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, the Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations, the Federation of European Equine Veterinary Associations, and the World Small Animal Veterinary Association unanimously adopted a joint position paper formally calling for a complete ban on the sale and use of electric pulse training devices including electric shock collars for dogs. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, the American Animal Hospital Association, the British Veterinary Association, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the Australian Veterinary Association, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the New Zealand Veterinary Association, and the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology have each independently reached the same position. Animal welfare and humane organizations across the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have aligned with the veterinary behavior consensus. Leading professional training and behavior organizations including IAABC, the Karen Pryor Academy, the Victoria Stilwell Academy, the Academy for Dog Trainers, the Pet Professional Guild, and APDT International have adopted standards explicitly excluding aversive equipment.

Table 5. Comparative jurisdictional summary covering twenty-seven enacted jurisdictions across Europe, Australia, Quebec, Latin America, the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, and several US states. Full table reproduced in the Jurisdiction Playbook and in the Policy Paper PDF.

7.4 Jurisdictions That Have Enacted Prohibitions on Aversive Training Equipment

Wales (2010), Gibraltar (2026), Switzerland (2008), Germany (case-law from 2006), Austria (2005), Denmark (2009), the Netherlands (2018 with the professional exception closed in 2021), Norway (2010), Sweden (2019), Finland (2024), France (professional contexts, 2025), Spain (2023), Slovenia, Belgium-Wallonia (2023), and Belgium-Flanders (electric-collar prohibition taking effect 2027). Latin America: Colombia (2025). North America at the subnational level: Quebec (2024). Australia: federal import prohibition on pronged collars; state and territory prohibitions in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria. Pending United States state legislation in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island is documented in the Jurisdiction Playbook on this page and in the policy paper itself.

Back to document menu

8. Real-World Use: Why Research Conditions Underestimate Risk

Masson, Nigron, and Gaultier (2018b) surveyed 1,251 respondents in France about electronic collar use and found that 71.8 percent of users operated the equipment without professional advice, that 75 percent had tried two or fewer alternative methods before reaching for the collar, and that 7 percent of dogs on which collars had been used presented with physical wounds. Lines, van Driel, and Cooper (2013) examined the electrical characteristics of thirteen commercially available electronic training collar models and documented an eighty-seven-fold range in stimulus energy at maximum settings across products marketed for the same use category, with no point-of-sale disclosure of pulse parameters. The United States has no Food and Drug Administration regulation, no Consumer Product Safety Commission standard, and no state-level technical standard for these devices. United States public attitude data conducted by Edelman Intelligence and reported by Petco in October 2020 found that 70 percent of dog guardians believe shock collars negatively impact their pet’s emotional or mental wellbeing, that 69 percent consider shock collars a cruel training method, and that 59 percent of pet guardians would prefer to shock themselves than their dog (Petco, 2020).

9. Anticipated Proponent Objections

This section anticipates and answers the principal proponent counter-moves: cherry-picking allegations, the cortisol non-significance reading of Cooper 2014, the reinforcement-rate critique, controllability and predictability claims, low-level stim and gentle correction claims, the not-really-aversive framing, the TENS unit comparison, the prong-collar-just-gets-the-dog’s-attention claim, the choke-chain mimicry-of-mother-correction claim, the my-dog-looks-happy claim, and the rescue device unfalsifiability problem. Section 9.12 addresses the contemporary neuroscientific argument that successful electronic-collar training transitions dogs to a welfare-neutral goal-directed anxiety state, and shows that the same neuroscience the argument invokes locates the dog’s calm under aversive contingency in an anxiety state mediated by an effective avoidance response, not in the absence of threat representation. Section 9.13 catalogs fourteen rhetorical and terminological moves grouped into four categories with the accurate behavior-science translation for each. Section 9.14 addresses studies frequently cited by proponents and how to respond. Section 9.15 catalogs the ten most common defensive justifications a proponent uses to make aversive use sound cautious, necessary, compassionate, or moderate, with the evidence response to each.

10. Recommended United States Policy

The recommended policy has two complementary components. The first is a prohibition of aversive training equipment, addressed in Section 10.1; delivered through legislation regulating sale, import, and use, modeled on the legislative architecture already in place in Wales, Switzerland, Germany, France, and the other jurisdictions cataloged in Section 7.4. The second is a substantive force-free model state standard of practice for commercial dog training and behavior modification, addressed in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 and enforced through state licensure of trainers and behavior consultants, addressed in Section 10.5. Component one removes aversive equipment from the consumer marketplace. Component two ensures that commercial training and behavior modification services delivered to the public are conducted using non-aversive methods, including the regulation of confrontational handling techniques applied without equipment. Both components are necessary.

10.1 Equipment Prohibition: Scope

A United States policy should prohibit the sale, import, and use of aversive training equipment for dogs. This includes electronic collars of all types (remote-controlled, bark-activated, and electronic containment), prong or pinch collars of all designs, choke chains, choke collars, and slip collars designed to constrict the neck under load, and spray collars in the citronella and scentless-air variants. Ultrasonic and audible-tone bark-and-behavior-modification devices raise welfare concerns of their own and are addressed under the professional standards of practice in Section 10.2 rather than under this equipment-prohibition framework. Properly fitted flat collars, body harnesses (front-clip and back-clip), and head collars (such as the Halti and Gentle Leader) are not aversive equipment and are not within the scope of this prohibition. Limited-slip martingale collars whose tightening section is configured so that the collar cannot constrict to a circumference smaller than the resting circumference of the dog’s neck are not aversive equipment and are not within the scope of this prohibition.

10.2 Force-Free Standards of Practice and the Hierarchy of Dog Needs as a Leading Reference Framework

The second component of the recommended policy is a substantive force-free standard of practice for commercial dog training and behavior modification. The model state standard recommended here is built on objective, legislatively stated principles that operationalize the convergent welfare evidence catalogued in Sections 3 through 7. The principles are: that reward-based methods are the basis of permitted training and behavior modification practice; that practice is welfare-centered, attentive to the dog’s biological, emotional, social, and cognitive needs; that positive punishment is excluded from permitted practice; that negative reinforcement is excluded from permitted practice; that engineered extinction is excluded from permitted practice where it creates distress or welfare risk; and that aversive control procedures, including those whose mechanism of action engages nociception, threat circuitry, fear, intimidation, or escape-avoidance learning, are excluded from permitted practice. These principles are stated directly in the model state standard and do not depend for their legal force on any externally controlled framework.

Linda Michaels’ Hierarchy of Dog Needs and Best Force-Free Practices (Michaels, 2022) provides a leading articulation of these principles in the contemporary force-free training and behavior modification literature. The Hierarchy of Dog Needs is a comprehensive welfare and training framework, embedded with an ethical code, that establishes the First, Do No Harm principle as the governing standard for canine training and behavior modification. It organizes care across five tiers of needs (biological, emotional, social, cognitive, and force-free training needs), and its Best Force-Free Practices comprise eight permitted methods. The Hierarchy of Dog Needs is cited throughout this paper as the leading articulation of the substantive force-free standards listed above; state legislatures and regulatory bodies are encouraged to consult it as a reference framework. The state standard, however, is the substantive principles written into the licensing statute. The Hierarchy of Dog Needs informs and articulates those principles; it does not, in this recommendation, function as the legal standard itself.

10.3 Confrontational Handling Techniques and Standards of Practice

The recommended policy reaches not only aversive equipment but also aversive techniques applied without equipment. Confrontational handling techniques include the alpha roll, the dominance down, the scruff shake, hanging or helicoptering, hitting or kicking the dog, forced retrieves involving ear pinches or toe pinches, finger jabs to the neck or ribs, and systematic use of yelling, intimidation, or threatening tone of voice as an aversive intervention designed to suppress behavior or to drive avoidance learning. These techniques operate by the same mechanism as aversive equipment, engage nociception and threat circuitry, and produce avoidance learning rather than resolution of the underlying behavior. They are reached, under the framework recommended by this paper, through the second component of the policy: state licensure of commercial dog training and behavior modification, with the substantive force-free standards of practice set forth in Section 10.2 as the required standard of practice.

10.4 Rationale

Six considerations support the recommendation: mechanism (aversive equipment and methods produce behavior change through punishment or negative reinforcement), welfare risk supported by convergent evidence, the failure of the necessity claim, the empirical record on real-world use, the existence of less intrusive alternatives, and international veterinary consensus. The conclusion is not that aversive equipment is acceptable when applied skillfully and unacceptable otherwise. The conclusion is that aversive equipment is not the appropriate tool, regardless of who is holding it, because less intrusive effective alternatives exist.

10.5 Supporting Infrastructure

A United States ban should be paired with public education, professional standards for trainers, and accessible humane training alternatives. States should adopt licensure requirements for any person who provides dog training or behavior modification services for pet dogs on a commercial, fee-for-service basis. Licensure should require, at minimum, demonstrated competency through certification by an independent credentialing organization whose standards align with the substantive force-free standards of practice; documented continuing education; adherence to a published professional code of conduct; and accountability through a state regulatory board with authority to investigate complaints and impose disciplinary action. The licensure architecture is already under active legislative consideration in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Implementation should include a 36-month transition period, a moderate grandfathering pathway for trainers with five or more years of continuous documented commercial practice, and an explicit bridging pathway for trainers credentialed by the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers or the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants. The framework presumes active state supervision of any licensure board composed of active market participants.

11. Conclusion

Aversive training equipment and aversive training methods change behavior through aversive control. The mechanism is what it is, and what follows from the mechanism follows. Adding food does not subtract the aversive. Skilled application does not subtract the aversive. Controllability and predictability attenuate but do not eliminate the welfare cost. The professional consensus is documented, convergent, and international. Multiple jurisdictions have enacted legislative bans, in some cases for more than fifteen years, without producing peer-reviewed evidence of increased public safety risk attributable to the prohibition. The United States can either align with this international veterinary consensus or remain an outlier. The evidence does not support the outlier position.

Closing Note for the Practitioner Community

This paper is written first for the practitioner community: the trainers, behavior consultants, certified applied animal behaviorists, and veterinary behaviorists who carry the responsibility of explaining, defending, and operationalizing the science of canine welfare in their daily work. Cite the paper in client handouts, in educational content, in social media posts and blog posts, in podcast episodes, in video scripts, in continuing education materials. The convergent welfare evidence has existed in the peer-reviewed literature for years. The international veterinary consensus has been formal since 2024. What is needed at this point is not more evidence. What is needed is for the practitioner community to translate the existing evidence into client conversations, into professional advocacy, into public education, and into policy pressure.

Glossary

The full glossary in the source document covers neuroscience and threat-circuit terminology (amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, conditioned emotional response, controllability, defensive circuitry, fear conditioning, hippocampus, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, learned helplessness, locus coeruleus, periaqueductal gray, predictability, prefrontal cortex, safety signal, threat circuit), stress physiology (allostatic load, catecholamines, chronic stress, cortisol, glucocorticoids), nociception and pain science, anatomy specific to neck-pressure injury, welfare science and assessment methodology, specialized learning theory, electronic device and electrical terminology, and regulatory and professional terms. The complete glossary is reproduced in the Policy Paper PDF.

References

The complete reference list comprises peer-reviewed primary research, peer-reviewed reviews, position statements of named professional and welfare organizations, and statutory and regulatory text on the public record. Each citation includes a DOI or a URL. Anchor citations include Cooper et al. (2014), China et al. (2020), Schilder and van der Borg (2004), Vieira de Castro et al. (2019, 2020), Casey et al. (2014, 2021), Deldalle and Gaunet (2014), Blackwell et al. (2008, 2012), Hiby et al. (2004), Rooney and Cowan (2011), Arhant et al. (2010), Herron et al. (2009), Masson et al. (2018a, 2018b), Lines et al. (2013), Pauli et al. (2006), Carter et al. (2020), Hunter et al. (2019), Grohmann et al. (2013), Dubin and Patapoutian (2010), Raja et al. (2020), Affolter and Moore (1994), LeDoux (2014), Cain (2019), Maier and Watkins (2005), Limbachia et al. (2021), Wood et al. (2014), Sears et al. (2026), Christiansen et al. (2001), Gillan et al. (2014), Gordon, Patterson, and Knowlton (2020), Johnson and Wynne (2024, 2025), Bastos, Warren, and Krupenye (2025), Bangura (2025, SSRN), and the institutional position statements of FVE, FECAVA, FEEVA, and WSAVA (2024); AVSAB (2021); ACVB (2025); AAHA (2015); BVA (2024); BSAVA (2024); AVA (2022); CVMA (2021); NZVA (n.d.); IAABC (2025); APDTNZ (2022); ASPCA (n.d.); RSPCA Australia (n.d.); BC SPCA (n.d.); and Petco (2020). The complete reference list is reproduced in the Policy Paper PDF.

Foreword

The peer-reviewed welfare research has been consistent for a long time. The international veterinary profession reached a formal consensus position in the June 2024 joint position paper of the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, the Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations, the Federation of European Equine Veterinary Associations, and the World Small Animal Veterinary Association. The regulatory precedent is established. By 2026, twenty-seven enacted jurisdictions, including Wales, Switzerland, Germany, Gibraltar, Belgium-Wallonia, Quebec, and a growing list of state and provincial governments in Australia and Canada, have prohibited the sale or use of these devices in some combination. None of them has published evidence of public-safety harm attributable to the prohibition. The problem is not the evidence. The problem is that the United States has not yet acted on it. That is what this paper exists to address.

How to Use This Document

This is the Legislative Edition of The Scientific Case Against Aversive Dog Training Equipment and Methods. It is written for state legislators, legislative aides, policy staff, and the legal and animal welfare professionals who advise them. A separate Practitioner Edition, retaining additional sections on rhetorical decoding and section-by-section response to common proponent objections, is available for trainers, behavior consultants, and applied animal behaviorists. If you have ten minutes, read the Executive Summary. If you have an hour, read the Executive Summary, then Section 7 (including the comparative jurisdictional table at Section 7.4), then Section 10. If you have an afternoon, read the document straight through.

Section numbering in this Legislative Edition is preserved from the full policy paper to maintain cross-reference consistency. The full paper’s Section 9, which catalogs practitioner-facing rebuttals to common proponent objections, terminology and rhetorical decoders, and defensive-justification responses, is intentionally omitted from this edition because it is not material a state legislative committee needs in order to act. The body therefore moves directly from Section 8 to Section 10.

The companion documents to this Legislative Edition are the Studies Playbook (per-study profile of every peer-reviewed study cited) and the Jurisdiction Playbook (per-jurisdiction profile of every legislative and regulatory action). Both are independently downloadable from the cards above.

Executive Summary

The United States should adopt animal welfare policy banning the sale and use of aversive training equipment for dogs. The equipment in question is electronic collars (remote, bark-activated, and containment variants), prong or pinch collars, choke collars (also called choke chains or slip collars), and citronella and scentless-air spray collars. Ultrasonic and audible-tone variants are addressed under professional standards of practice rather than under the equipment-prohibition framework, as detailed in Section 10. Alongside that prohibition, the United States should adopt a substantive force-free model state standard of practice for commercial dog training and behavior modification, drawing on Linda Michaels’ Hierarchy of Dog Needs and Best Force-Free Practices (Michaels, 2022) as a leading reference framework, enforced through state licensure of trainers and behavior consultants.

The case rests on the functional definition of aversive control. Cooper (2014) and China (2020) ran controlled studies showing that dogs trained without electronic collars achieve outcomes equal to or better than dogs trained with them. Herron, Shofer, and Reisner (2009) document that confrontational handling techniques produce aggressive responses in a substantial fraction of dogs on whom they were attempted. Two senior fear-conditioning researchers, Dr. Luiz Pessoa and Dr. David Knight, have each independently confirmed in writing that their research does not support treating predictable, controllable aversive stimulation as neurologically neutral or welfare-benign.

Twenty-seven enacted jurisdictions across Europe, Australia, Quebec, Latin America, the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, and several US states have legislated against aversive dog training equipment in some combination. Wales banned electronic collars in 2010. Switzerland’s Animal Protection Ordinance prohibits spiked, pinch, and electronic collars. Germany operates a case-law prohibition since 2006. Belgium-Flanders has enacted a future electric-collar prohibition taking effect 1 January 2027, while Belgium-Wallonia has prohibited the use of electric, choke, and prong or spiked collars under a regional order in force since 1 April 2023. Gibraltar enacted a statutory criminal prohibition covering electronic, choke, and pronged collars on cats and dogs, gazetted 23 March 2026 under the Animals (Amendment) Act 2025. None of these jurisdictions has published evidence of public-safety harm attributable to the prohibition.

The recommended policy has two complementary components: a prohibition on aversive training equipment, removing electronic, prong, choke, and citronella and scentless-air spray collars from the consumer marketplace; and a substantive force-free model state standard of practice for commercial dog training and behavior modification. Active legislative interest in the licensing component is already in motion at the United States state level, with pending proposals in New York (Senate Bill S 7723 and Assembly Bill A 6985), New Jersey (Assembly Bills A 4206 and A 4207; Senate Bill S 3814 was held by sponsor following committee testimony in February 2025), Massachusetts (House Bill H 2342 and Senate Bill S 1459), and Rhode Island (House Bill H 7487).

1. Introduction: The Wrong Question and the Right One

Debates about aversive training equipment and aversive training methods almost always get trapped inside the wrong question. The wrong question is whether these tools and methods work. The right question is how they work, what welfare costs come with that mechanism, whether those costs are necessary, and whether broad public access is justified when safer alternatives exist. The argument applies to all aversive training equipment and all aversive handling techniques as a single, unified category, because that is the way the international veterinary and welfare consensus already treats these tools and methods. The mechanism of action across electronic, mechanical, and confrontational modalities is the same.

2. The Functional Definition of Aversive Control

The term aversive refers to a procedure defined by its function rather than by its label or its appearance. A stimulus is aversive when its delivery decreases a behavior or when its termination reinforces a behavior. The dog acts to avoid, escape, or terminate the stimulus, and the working mechanism of any tool or method that produces this effect is aversive control. Whether the device is called a shock collar, electronic collar, remote training collar, electronic stimulation collar, prong collar, pinch collar, choke collar, or slip collar, and whether the technique is called a correction, a tap, a stim, a pop, or a pressure, the analysis applies if the procedure operates by the contingency described above.

3. The Welfare Evidence Is Convergent

Cooper, Cracknell, Hardiman, Wright, and Mills (2014) ran the methodologically strongest controlled comparison of electronic collar training to reward-based training for pet dogs referred for recall problems. China, Mills, and Cooper (2020) re-analyzed the same dataset and reported superior outcomes for the reward-based group on multiple efficacy measures. Schilder and van der Borg (2004), Casey et al. (2021), Deldalle and Gaunet (2014), Vieira de Castro et al. (2019, 2020), Blackwell et al. (2008), Hiby et al. (2004), Rooney and Cowan (2011), Arhant et al. (2010), and Herron et al. (2009) collectively establish a convergent welfare signal across experimental, observational, survey, cognitive bias, attachment, and clinical referral methodologies. Subsections cover controlled studies, broader research, the dissociation between behavioral and physiological stress markers, conditioned emotional responses, cumulative exposure, and a quick-reference summary table.

4. Nociception, Mechanical Injury, Aversion, and the Real Welfare Standard

The welfare case against aversive training equipment does not rest on a claim that the tools cause tissue injury. Nociceptors fire at intensities well below the threshold of actual tissue injury, because the system exists to warn the organism away from potentially damaging stimuli before damage occurs (Dubin and Patapoutian, 2010; Raja et al., 2020). For neck-pressure equipment, peer-reviewed veterinary research adds a separate evidentiary layer: Carter et al. (2020), Hunter et al. (2019), Pauli et al. (2006), and the Grohmann et al. (2013) peer-reviewed case report of fatal cerebral ischemia following a punitive choke-chain hanging technique. Subsections cover what aversive equipment actually engages, the documented physical effects of neck-pressure equipment, and threat circuitry under controllability and predictability.

5. The Necessity Claim Fails

Where the necessity claim has been empirically tested under best-practice conditions, the tools produced welfare cost without producing better outcomes than reward-based methods. Board-certified veterinary behaviorists treat the most severe canine aggression, reactivity, anxiety, and predatory cases without aversive equipment.

6. Reactivity, Aggression, and Confrontational Handling

Aversive-based training is especially concerning when used with reactivity and aggression. Herron, Shofer, and Reisner (2009) document that confrontational handling techniques produced aggressive responses in a substantial percentage of dogs on whom they were attempted. Suppression of visible behavior is not the same as resolution of fear, anxiety, frustration, or defensive motivation.

7. Professional and Regulatory Consensus

The June 2024 joint position paper of FVE, FECAVA, FEEVA, and WSAVA formally calls for a complete ban on the sale and use of electric pulse training devices including electric shock collars for dogs. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, the American Animal Hospital Association, the British Veterinary Association, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the Australian Veterinary Association, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and the New Zealand Veterinary Association have each independently reached the same position. Animal welfare and humane organizations across the English-speaking world have aligned with the veterinary behavior consensus.

7.4 Jurisdictions That Have Enacted Prohibitions on Aversive Training Equipment

Twenty-seven enacted jurisdictions have legislated against aversive dog training equipment in some combination. The comparative jurisdictional summary in Table 5 (and in the Jurisdiction Playbook on this page) covers Wales (2010), Gibraltar (2026), Switzerland (2008), Germany (case-law from 2006), Austria (2005), Denmark (2009), the Netherlands (2018, 2021 closure), Norway (2010), Sweden (2019), Finland (2024), France (professional contexts, 2025), Spain (2023), Slovenia, Belgium-Wallonia (2023), Belgium-Flanders (electric-collar prohibition taking effect 2027), Colombia (2025), Quebec (2024), the Australian federal import prohibition, and the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria. New Zealand is included separately as professional and veterinary consensus rather than statutory prohibition.

Back to document menu

8. Real-World Use: Why Research Conditions Underestimate Risk

Masson et al. (2018b) found that 71.8 percent of users operated the equipment without professional advice, that 75 percent had tried two or fewer alternative methods before reaching for the collar, and that 7 percent of dogs on which collars had been used presented with physical wounds. Lines, van Driel, and Cooper (2013) documented an eighty-seven-fold range in stimulus energy at maximum settings across thirteen commercial models. The United States has no Food and Drug Administration regulation, no Consumer Product Safety Commission standard, and no state-level technical standard for these devices. Public attitude data conducted by Edelman Intelligence and reported by Petco in October 2020 indicate that 70 percent of dog guardians believe shock collars negatively impact their pet’s emotional or mental wellbeing, that 69 percent consider shock collars cruel, and that 59 percent would prefer to shock themselves than their dog.

Section 9 from the Practitioner Edition is intentionally omitted from this Legislative Edition. The body now moves directly from Section 8 to Section 10.

10. Recommended United States Policy

The recommended policy has two complementary components. The first is prohibition of aversive training equipment, addressed in Section 10.1. The second is a substantive force-free model state standard of practice for commercial dog training and behavior modification, addressed in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 and enforced through state licensure of trainers and behavior consultants, addressed in Section 10.5.

10.1 Equipment Prohibition: Scope

A United States policy should prohibit the sale, import, and use of aversive training equipment for dogs, including electronic collars of all types, prong or pinch collars of all designs, choke chains and choke collars and slip collars designed to constrict the neck under load, and spray collars in the citronella and scentless-air variants. Ultrasonic and audible-tone bark-and-behavior-modification devices are addressed under the professional standards of practice in Section 10.2 rather than under this equipment-prohibition framework. Properly fitted flat collars, body harnesses, head collars (such as the Halti and Gentle Leader), and properly configured limited-slip martingale collars are not within the scope of this prohibition.

10.2 Force-Free Standards of Practice and the Hierarchy of Dog Needs as a Leading Reference Framework

The model state standard recommended here is built on objective, legislatively stated principles operationalizing the convergent welfare evidence catalogued in Sections 3 through 7. Reward-based methods are the basis of permitted practice. Positive punishment, negative reinforcement, engineered extinction where it creates distress or welfare risk, and aversive control procedures generally are excluded from permitted practice. Linda Michaels’ Hierarchy of Dog Needs and Best Force-Free Practices (Michaels, 2022) provides a leading articulation of these principles in the contemporary force-free training and behavior modification literature; state legislatures and regulatory bodies are encouraged to consult it as a reference framework. The state standard is the substantive principles written into the licensing statute. The Hierarchy of Dog Needs informs and articulates those principles; it does not, in this recommendation, function as the legal standard itself.

10.3 Confrontational Handling Techniques and Standards of Practice

The recommended policy reaches not only aversive equipment but also aversive techniques applied without equipment. Confrontational handling techniques include the alpha roll, the dominance down, the scruff shake, hanging or helicoptering, hitting or kicking the dog, and similar procedures that operate by positive punishment or negative reinforcement. They are reached through state licensure with the substantive force-free standards of practice as the required standard.

10.4 Rationale

Six considerations support the recommendation: mechanism, welfare risk supported by convergent evidence, the failure of the necessity claim, the empirical record on real-world use, the existence of less intrusive alternatives, and international veterinary consensus.

10.5 Supporting Infrastructure

States should adopt licensure requirements for any person who provides dog training or behavior modification services for pet dogs on a commercial, fee-for-service basis, with demonstrated competency, continuing education, a published professional code of conduct, and accountability through a state regulatory board. Implementation should include a 36-month transition period with moderate grandfathering for trainers with five or more years of continuous documented commercial practice, and an explicit bridging pathway for CCPDT-credentialed and IAABC-credentialed trainers. The framework presumes active state supervision of any licensure board composed of active market participants.

11. Conclusion

The case for a United States ban on aversive training equipment, and for the adoption of a substantive force-free model state standard of practice, drawing on the Hierarchy of Dog Needs and Best Force-Free Practices as a leading reference framework, is conservative in the technical sense. It follows established scientific evidence, established veterinary welfare consensus, established peer-reviewed veterinary research on the physical effects of neck-pressure equipment, and established international regulatory practice.

Glossary

The Legislative Edition glossary covers the same neuroscience, stress physiology, nociception, anatomy, welfare science, learning theory, electronic device, and regulatory and professional terminology as the Practitioner Edition. The complete glossary is reproduced in the Legislative Edition PDF.

References

The complete reference list in the Legislative Edition tracks the Practitioner Edition references, with adjustments reflecting the omission of Section 9. The full citation list with DOIs and URLs is reproduced in the Legislative Edition PDF.

How to Use This Playbook

This document organizes the peer-reviewed literature behind the force-free position by study, with one profile per study. The policy paper organizes the same material by argument; this playbook organizes it by source. Each profile includes the full citation with hyperlinked DOI, design and sample, key findings, the proponent reading and the response where applicable, deployment guidance, and limits and honest acknowledgments where applicable. The Pessoa and Knight personal communications are folded as interpretive notes into the Limbachia et al. (2021) and Wood et al. (2014) profiles in Group G; they are interpretive support, not primary empirical evidence, and they are not listed as standalone study profiles.

Table A. Comprehensive Studies Summary

Table A consolidates the studies covered in the playbook by group, with the design and the key finding in compact form. The Group column corresponds to the group letters used in the playbook body (A through K). Studies in Groups A through G support the force-free position; Group H is contested; Group I consists of studies cited by proponents that, on examination, do not support the proponent reading. Bolded entries are the strongest single citations for each group. The convergence across groups is the structural feature of the evidence base; no single study carries the case alone. The full Table A is reproduced in the Studies Playbook PDF.

Back to document menu

Group A. Controlled Experimental Studies of Aversive Equipment

Cooper, Cracknell, Hardiman, Wright, and Mills (2014). Randomized controlled study of 63 pet dogs referred for recall problems. Three groups: industry-nominated trainers using e-collars, the same trainers without e-collars, and APDT-affiliated reward-based trainers. Dogs trained without e-collars achieved equivalent or better training outcomes; the e-collar group showed significantly elevated stress-related behaviors during training. The cortisol comparison did not reach significance in the larger main study.

China, Mills, and Cooper (2020). Re-analysis and continued analysis of the Cooper 2014 dataset, focusing specifically on training efficacy across the three groups. Reward-based training achieved superior outcomes on multiple efficacy measures, including faster latency to sit, fewer hand and lead signals required, and faster general obedience progress.

Group B. Direct Observational and Clinical Studies

Schilder and van der Borg (2004). Behavioral observation of protection-trained working dogs (German Shepherd dogs) during and after shock collar training. Documents conditioned emotional response associated with the training context, the trainer, and the commands. Deldalle and Gaunet (2014). Direct observational study of two French training schools, one using negative reinforcement and one using positive reinforcement. Rooney and Cowan (2011). Home-based observational study of 53 guardian-dog pairs assessing training methods, learning ability on a novel task, and behavior problems. Herron, Shofer, and Reisner (2009). Clinical referral survey of 140 client-owned dogs presenting to the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary Behavior Clinic.

Group C. Population-Level Survey Studies

Hiby, Rooney, and Bradshaw (2004). Blackwell, Twells, Seawright, and Casey (2008). Arhant, Bubna-Littitz, Bartels, Futschik, and Troxler (2010). Blackwell, Bolster, Richards, Loftus, and Casey (2012). Casey, Loftus, Bolster, Richards, and Blackwell (2014). Masson, Nigron, and Gaultier (2018b). Masson, de la Vega, Gazzano, Mariti, Pereira, Halsberghe, Leyvraz, McPeake, and Schoening (2018a). Starinsky, Lord, and Herron (2017).

Group D. Affective State, Cognitive Bias, and Attachment Studies

Vieira de Castro, Barrett, de Sousa, and Olsson (2019). Vieira de Castro, Fuchs, Morello, Pastur, de Sousa, and Olsson (2020). Casey, Naj-Oleari, Campbell, Mendl, and Blackwell (2021).

Group E. Mechanical and Physical Effects (Neck-Pressure Equipment)

Pauli, Bentley, Diehl, and Miller (2006). Carter, McNally, and Roshier (2020). Hunter, Blake, and De Godoy (2019). Grohmann, Dickomeit, Schmidt, and Kramer (2013) (peer-reviewed case report of fatal cerebral ischemia following a punitive choke-chain hanging technique). Rozanski (2022) (clinical recognition that repeated collar pressure is a clinical concern for tracheal collapse).

Group F. Pain Neuroscience and Sensory Engagement

Dubin and Patapoutian (2010) (nociception primer). Raja et al. (2020) (current International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain). Affolter and Moore (1994) (canine haired-skin epidermis approximately three to five cell layers thick). Lines, van Driel, and Cooper (2013) (eighty-seven-fold range in stimulus energy at maximum settings across thirteen commercial models, with an eighty-one-fold median ratio of maximum to minimum delivered energy within collars across user-dial settings, and manufacturing faults in two of thirteen new collars). Where TENS units are referenced in Lines (2013) and in proponent comparisons, the calibration in this playbook is to conventional sensory-level TENS for therapeutic muscle and nerve stimulation in a clinical setting.

Group G. Threat Circuitry, Controllability, and Avoidance Learning

LeDoux (2014). Cain (2019). Maier and Watkins (2005). Limbachia, Morrow, Khibovska, Meyer, Padmala, and Pessoa (2021). The senior author of Limbachia (2021), Dr. Luiz Pessoa, confirmed in written correspondence with the present author that the attenuation findings of that study should not be interpreted as rendering controllable aversive stimulation neurologically neutral or welfare-benign. Wood, Ver Hoef, and Knight (2014). Dr. David Knight, the senior author of Wood (2014), confirmed in written correspondence that his research, including work on the conditioned diminution of unconditioned responses, cannot be used to support the proposition that predictable aversive stimulation is neutral or benign. Sears, Andrade, Samels, Laughlin, Moloney, Wilson, Alwood, Moscarello, and Cain (2026), a rat shuttlebox active avoidance study demonstrating that response-produced feedback cues are transformed during training into safety signals that positively reinforce avoidance, with moderately trained avoidance goal-directed and depending on the posterior dorsomedial striatum and overtrained avoidance becoming habitual and depending on the dorsolateral striatum. Christiansen, Bakken, and Braastad (2001). Arnsten (2009). Vyas, Mitra, Shankaranarayana Rao, and Chattarji (2002). Rosenkranz, Venheim, and Padival (2010). McEwen (2012). Gillan, Morein-Zamir, Urcelay, Sule, Voon, Apergis-Schoute, Fineberg, Sahakian, and Robbins (2014). Gordon, Patterson, and Knowlton (2020) is described in calibrated terms in this playbook: it documents stronger habitual avoidance in survivors of early life stress and is consistent with the dorsolateral striatum-mediated habitual circuit Sears (2026) isolates, without claiming that Gordon (2020) directly demonstrates dorsolateral striatum activation.

Group H. The Contested Study

Johnson and Wynne (2024). Bastos, Warren, and Krupenye (2025). Johnson and Wynne (2025) authors’ response. Bangura (2025) SSRN methodological critique. Group H is treated as contested rather than supportive of the force-free position; the Bastos critique is treated as a 2025 publication, not as a 2024 publication.

Group I. Proponent-Cited Studies and How to Address Them

Salgirli, Schalke, Boehm, and Hackbarth (2012). Steiss, Schaffer, Ahmad, and Voith (2007). Schalke, Stichnoth, Ott, and Jones-Baade (2007). Tortora (1983) is described in this playbook as a complex multi-stage protocol drawn from the prevailing methodological frame of its era; it is not described as a 9-stage protocol. Lindsay (2005) Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Volume 3, treated as a learning-theory and proponent-cited reference rather than as a controlled efficacy study.

Group J. Foundational and Theoretical Works

Mowrer (1947). Bandura (1965). Melzack and Wall (1965). Thompson and Spencer (1966). Schenkel (1947). Mech (1999). Mech (2008).

Group K. Dog Training Adjacent Reviews and Welfare-Framework References

Mellor, Beausoleil, Littlewood, McLean, McGreevy, Jones, and Wilkins (2020). Todd (2018). Ziv (2017).

Closing Notes on Deployment

The convergent welfare evidence does not require any individual study to be perfect. It requires the agreement across studies to be robust, which it is. The pattern across the literature is sufficiently convergent to support precautionary welfare policy.

Table B. Quick-Reference Deployment Summary

Table B aligns each study to the practitioner deployment context for which it is the strongest single citation. The full Table B is reproduced in the Studies Playbook PDF.

Table C. Argument-to-Studies Index

Table C indexes practitioner arguments (the necessity claim, conditioned emotional response, mechanical injury, controllability and predictability, real-world use, public attitude, professional consensus) to the studies that anchor each argument. The full Table C is reproduced in the Studies Playbook PDF.

How to Use This Playbook

This document organizes the legislative and regulatory record on aversive dog training equipment by jurisdiction. The policy paper presents the same material as a comparative summary in Table 5; this playbook expands each entry into a profile suitable for legislative testimony, public comment letters, op-ed writing, professional advocacy correspondence, and conversations with state and provincial lawmakers. Each profile includes the jurisdiction name, statutory authority with citation, effective date, scope of prohibition, enforcement mechanism and penalty structure where known, years of operation under the ban, and notes on any post-implementation review, comparative position, or supplementary regulatory context. The playbook is organized by region: Europe, Latin America, North America at the subnational level, Australia (federal, state, and territory), New Zealand (treated separately as professional and veterinary consensus rather than statutory prohibition), and the United States (treated separately, with a section on existing state-level partial restrictions in the tethering context, and a section on pending United States legislation organized by legislative-design approach). Where this playbook discusses the absence of harm from prohibition, the framing is deliberately literature-claim form rather than categorical. The defensible position is that no published peer-reviewed evidence of measurable public-safety harm from prohibition has been produced, not that no harm has occurred.

Table A. Comparative Jurisdictional Summary

Table A consolidates the legislative and regulatory record on aversive dog training equipment across twenty-seven enacted jurisdictions, organized by region. The pattern is consistent: where evidence-based welfare considerations have been weighed by national, regional, or state legislative bodies, the consistent direction of policy has been toward restriction or prohibition, never toward expansion of access or normalization of use. The full Table A is reproduced in the Jurisdiction Playbook PDF and includes citation, effective date, scope, and years of operation for each jurisdiction.

Back to document menu

Europe

Wales (United Kingdom)

Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010, Welsh Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 943 (W. 97), made under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. In force 24 March 2010. Prohibits the use of electronic collars on dogs and cats. Sixteen years of operation as of 2026, the longest-running comprehensive electronic collar prohibition among English-speaking jurisdictions.

Gibraltar (British Overseas Territory)

Animals (Amendment) Act 2025 (Gibraltar), enacted as No. 5 of 2026, inserting section 5C into the Animals Act. Gazetted 23 March 2026. Section 5C makes it a summary offence to attach an electronic collar, choke collar, or pronged collar to a cat or dog, to cause one to be attached, or to have one’s cat or dog wear such a collar. It is a separate summary offence to possess in Gibraltar a remote-control device designed or adapted to activate and control an electronic collar while a cat or dog is wearing such a collar. The Act defines collar broadly to include collars, harnesses, or any item that may be worn by a cat or dog, which forecloses redesign workarounds based on alternative wearable formats. Penalty: fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Switzerland

Animal Protection Ordinance (Tierschutzverordnung, TSchV), 455.1, Article 76, of 23 April 2008, in force 1 September 2008. Prohibits the use of spike collars, pinch collars, and electronic collars, and broadly prohibits equipment causing pain, fear, or major injury. Approximately eighteen years of operation as of 2026.

Germany

Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz), §3 No. 11, originally 1972 and consolidated 18 May 2006; interpreted to cover electronic training devices by Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) judgment of 23 February 2006, BVerwG 3 C 14.05. The Court applied the prohibition on the basis of design and function, regardless of how an individual user might attempt to apply the device.

Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

Austria (2005, §5(2)(3)(a) of the Federal Animal Protection Act, prohibiting spike collars, prong collars, and electric and chemical training devices). Denmark (Bekendtgørelse 607 of 25 June 2009, prohibiting remote-controlled and automatically operating electric devices and sharp or pointed prong collars). Finland (Animal Welfare Act 693/2023, in force 1 January 2024, prohibiting electric and spike collars). France (Arrêté of 19 June 2025, prohibiting electric, prong, and strangling collars in professional contexts). Netherlands (Besluit of 26 April 2018, in force 1 July 2018 for pinch collars; the e-collar professional exception was closed by Staatsblad 2021, 361). Norway (Animal Welfare Act 2009, in force 1 January 2010, prohibiting electric training devices, anti-bark electric collars, invisible electric fences, and prong collars). Slovenia (Animal Protection Act 1999, current consolidation in force 1 August 2025, restricting electronic training collars). Spain (Ley 7/2023, in force 29 September 2023, prohibiting electric, impulse, punishment, and choke collars; hunting, herding, and guard dogs are exempt). Sweden (Animal Welfare Act 2018:1192, in force 1 April 2019, prohibiting equipment delivering electric shocks and spike collars).

Belgium (Wallonia)

Walloon Government Decree of 15 December 2022, published in the Moniteur belge on 22 February 2023 (Numac 2023040666), in force 1 April 2023. Wallonia prohibits the use of accessories or products causing animals avoidable pain, suffering, or injuries, expressly including electric collars, choke collars, and prong or spiked collars for dogs, with limited derogations for specified official utility dogs and limited veterinary-supervised exceptions for choke collars on adult dogs. The Walloon order regulates use, not commercialization, because commercial regulation belongs to Belgian federal authority.

Belgium (Flanders)

Decree of 13 July 2018; phase-out scenario set in 2021. Belgium-Flanders has enacted a future electric-collar prohibition taking effect 1 January 2027, on remote-controlled and bark-activated electric collars on dogs in the Flemish region, with no exception for military, police, or behaviour therapists. Invisible-fence collars remain permitted. Belgium-Flanders should not be characterized as a Wallonia-style three-tool ban; the current scope is the future electric-collar prohibition described above. Wallonia and Flanders are listed separately because two regions within the same country have different regulatory scope and effective dates.

Latin America

Colombia

Ley 2480 de 2025 (Ley Kiara), Article 10, regulating professional pet care services; complemented by general anti-cruelty framework Ley 84 de 1989 as updated by Ley 2455 de 2025 (Ley Ángel) of 18 April 2025. In force 2025. Ley Kiara prohibits prong and electric collars in regulated pet care services, including kennels, training centres, transport, grooming, and spas. Colombia is the first Latin American country to enact a national-level prohibition on aversive training equipment.

North America (Subnational)

Quebec, Canada

Règlement sur le bien-être et la sécurité des animaux domestiques de compagnie et des équidés, chapter B-3.1, r. 0.1, made under the Loi sur le bien-être et la sécurité de l’animal. In force 10 February 2024. Prohibits collars likely to cause pain, identified by the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPAQ) as étrangleur (choke), à pointes (prong), électrique (electric), and martingale collars. First-offense fines range from 600 to 12,000 Canadian dollars, with tripled penalties for repeat offenses.

Australia (Federal, State, and Territory)

Australia (Commonwealth). Federal customs prohibition on the import of pronged collars under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956. Sale and use within Australia are regulated at the state and territory level. Australian Capital Territory. Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) §13, with prescribed permitted electric devices listed in the Animal Welfare Regulation 2001; further strengthened by amendments passed 26 September 2019. New South Wales. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW), section 16; electric collar prohibition added by 2000 amendment. Queensland. Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld), section 37A, inserted by the Animal Care and Protection Amendment Act 2022 in force 12 December 2022, prohibiting possession, use, and supply of pronged dog collars. South Australia. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations (No. 2) 2000 (SA), regulation 8(1)(a), prohibiting placing on an animal a collar designed to impart an electric shock. Tasmania. Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas), section 8(2)(ja), inserted by Act No. 36 of 2022, in force 30 November 2022. Victoria. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2019 (Vic), prohibiting pronged collars under regulation 11 and conditionally regulating electronic collars under regulations 23 to 29A.

New Zealand (Professional and Veterinary Consensus, Not Statutory Prohibition)

New Zealand operates under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 framework. Electronic collars are not subject to a formal national-level prohibition. The New Zealand Veterinary Association does not support the use of electronic behaviour-modifying collars and recommends positive reinforcement methods. The Association of Pet Dog Trainers New Zealand (APDTNZ, 2022) has issued a position statement that the use of electronic training collars is not only unnecessary but a form of cruelty. New Zealand is included here because the professional consensus position closely parallels formal regulatory prohibition in other jurisdictions, even though New Zealand has not enacted explicit equipment-specific legislation.

United States (Subnational, Partial Restrictions in Tethering Context)

United States state-level legislation on aversive training equipment is, at the time of writing, limited to partial restrictions in the tethering context rather than comprehensive prohibitions on sale and use. Hawaii. Hawaii Revised Statutes §711-1109(1)(j), as amended by Act 182, Session Laws 2021. Makes it a criminal offense of cruelty to animals in the second degree to tether or restrain a dog to a stationary object by means of a choke collar, pinch collar, or prong collar, unless the dog is engaged in an activity supervised by its owner or an agent of its owner. Rhode Island. Rhode Island General Laws §4-13-42, as substantially expanded by H 8095, Chapter 079 of the 2024 Public Laws of Rhode Island, in force 12 June 2024, prohibiting tethering with a choke-type collar, head collar, or prong-type collar and incorporating the Tufts Animal Care and Condition Weather Safety Scale. Connecticut. Connecticut General Statutes §22-350a, as amended by Public Act 22-59 (effective 1 October 2022). Other US states with tethering statutes are catalogued in the Jurisdiction Playbook PDF.

United States Pending Legislation (2024 to 2026 Period)

Pending bills are not enacted law. The following proposals are documented as legislative interest in the licensing and equipment-restriction architecture, not as adopted statutes.

Approach 1. Trainer Licensure Under Non-Aversive, Evidence-Based Standards. New York Senate Bill S 7723 / Assembly Bill A 6985 of the 2025-2026 session, requiring licensing and educational standards for canine trainers under non-aversive, evidence-based, positive reinforcement principles. New Jersey Senate Bill S 3814 of the 2024-2025 session (held by sponsor following committee testimony in February 2025). New Jersey Assembly Bill A 4206 (Dog Trainer Licensing Act) and Assembly Bill A 4207 (Dog Training Licensure Act), both introduced 19 February 2026. Approach 2. Restriction of Aversive Equipment in Behavior-Modification Plans. Massachusetts House Bill H 2342 and Senate Bill S 1459. Approach 3. Enhancement of Existing Tethering and Care Statutes. Rhode Island House Bill H 7487 of 2026.

Deployment Notes

Deployment notes cover use in legislative testimony, op-eds and public comment, conversations with state legislators, conversations with animal welfare advocates in other states, and responses to the radical or unprecedented framing. Anchor deployment line: Wales has banned shock collars since 2010. Switzerland banned aversive collars years before that. Fifteen years of regulatory experience in those jurisdictions, and no published study attributes measurable public-safety harm to the prohibition. The necessity-from-public-safety claim has been put before the regulatory experience of more than a dozen jurisdictions, and the published case for harm from prohibition has not been made.

Table B. Quick-Reference Deployment Summary

Table B aligns each jurisdiction to the practitioner deployment context for which it is the strongest single citation. The full Table B is reproduced in the Jurisdiction Playbook PDF.

How to Use This Playbook

This document is a deployment companion to the policy paper. The paper is the long-form citable case. This is the practitioner’s debate reference. Read it through once for the structure, then keep it accessible as a quick lookup during podcast appearances, online exchanges, in-person debates, client conversations, and continuing education sessions. Section 1 sets the frame. Sections 2 through 5 are the substance: the ten pillars of the argument, the fifteen terminology and rhetorical moves to recognize and counter, the twelve objections most likely to come up, and the ten defensive justifications proponents use to make aversive use sound cautious, necessary, or moderate. Section 6 is the citation block to keep in pocket. Section 7 is closers. Section 8 names the practitioner mistakes that most often derail force-free debaters. The 100 Statements companion document on this page provides a compressed lookup index for the most common pro-aversive defenses and anti-force-free attacks, paired with responses.

1. The Frame: Refuse the Wrong Question

Most debates over aversive equipment and methods get trapped inside the wrong question. The wrong question is whether these tools work. The right question is how they work, what welfare costs come with that mechanism, whether those costs are necessary, and whether broad public access is justified when safer alternatives exist. Opening move: I am not going to argue with you about whether shock or prong collars work. They can change behavior. So can a lot of things. The question is how they change it, what that costs the dog, and whether that cost is necessary when alternatives exist that produce the same outcome without it.

2. The Ten Pillars

These are the ten conceptual moves that carry any debate over aversive equipment and methods. Three formulations are given for each in the source document: a technical version (academic statement), a plain version (one to two sentences in conversation), and a thirty-second version (a single line for fast deployment).

• Pillar 1. The Mechanism Is Aversive, Regardless of Label.
• Pillar 2. The Intensity Dial Proves the Mechanism.
• Pillar 3. The Barely Perceptible Contradiction.
• Pillar 4. Mechanism, Not Tissue Damage, Is the Welfare Question.
• Pillar 5. Convergent Evidence, Not One Study.
• Pillar 6. The Necessity Claim Has Not Been Supported Under Best-Practice Conditions.
• Pillar 7. Adding Food Does Not Subtract the Aversive.
• Pillar 8. International Consensus Is Already In.
• Pillar 9. Active Avoidance Is Anxiety, Not Welfare Neutrality.
• Pillar 10. Predictability and Controllability Do Not Eliminate the Welfare Cost.

Back to document menu

3. The Fifteen Moves: Terminology and Rhetorical Decoder

Recognize these moves when they appear. The general principle is the same in every case: behavior science defines procedures by their function, not by their label. Whatever vocabulary variant the proponent introduces, the diagnostic question is whether the procedure depends on the dog working to avoid, escape, or terminate a stimulus. If yes, it is aversive. The fifteen moves are grouped into four categories: euphemisms that rename the aversive stimulus (Moves 1 to 4), reframings of the tool’s function (Moves 5 to 7), methodological frame reframings (Moves 8 to 10), and conceptual and logical deflections (Moves 11 to 15). Full translations and responses are reproduced in the Debate Playbook PDF.

4. The Twelve Objections: Counters and Kill Shots

Twelve objections most likely to arise in debate, each paired with a counter. The objections are: (1) cherry-picking; (2) cortisol non-significance in Cooper 2014; (3) reward groups had more reinforcement; (4) controllability and predictability make aversive use safe; (5) low-level stim or gentle corrections are benign; (6) it is not really aversive, the dog just finds it weird and wants to turn it off; (7) an electronic collar is just like a TENS unit; (8) the prong collar just gets the dog’s attention; (9) the choke chain mimics how a mother dog corrects her pups; (10) my dog looks happy in training; (11) the rescue device pattern (unfalsifiability); (12) modern e-collar trained dogs are in a goal-directed anxiety state, not under threat. Full counter language is reproduced in the Debate Playbook PDF.

5. The Ten Defensive Justifications: Translation and Counter

Ten defensive justifications proponents use to make aversive use sound cautious, necessary, compassionate, or moderate, each translated and answered: (1) it is a last resort, after positive reinforcement failed; (2) these tools save lives; (3) it is not punishment, it is clear communication; (4) modern collars are used at low levels and do not hurt; (5) the dog looks happy in training; (6) some dogs need consequences; (7) high-drive dogs need stronger tools; (8) electronic collars give dogs more freedom; (9) force-free trainers use force too; (10) these tools are safe when used by skilled professionals.

6. The Citation Block

The citation block organizes the most-cited sources into seven groups: Controlled Experimental Studies (Cooper et al., 2014; China et al., 2020); Observational and Survey Studies (Schilder and van der Borg, 2004; Deldalle and Gaunet, 2014; Vieira de Castro et al., 2019, 2020; Casey et al., 2014, 2021; Blackwell et al., 2008, 2012; Hiby et al., 2004; Rooney and Cowan, 2011; Arhant et al., 2010; Herron et al., 2009; Masson et al., 2018a, 2018b); Pain Neuroscience and Sensory Engagement (Dubin and Patapoutian, 2010; Raja et al., 2020; Affolter and Moore, 1994; Lines et al., 2013); Threat Circuitry and Active Avoidance (LeDoux, 2014; Cain, 2019; Maier and Watkins, 2005; Limbachia et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2014; Sears et al., 2026; Christiansen et al., 2001; Gillan et al., 2014; Gordon, Patterson, and Knowlton, 2020); Foundational and Theoretical Works; Physical Effects (Pauli et al., 2006; Carter et al., 2020; Hunter et al., 2019; Grohmann et al., 2013); Studies to Be Ready For Proponents to Invoke (including Johnson and Wynne, 2024; Bastos, Warren, and Krupenye, 2025; Bangura, 2025, SSRN); and Institutional Position Statements (FVE, FECAVA, FEEVA, and WSAVA, 2024; AVSAB, 2021; ACVB, 2025; AAHA, 2015; BVA, 2024; BSAVA, 2024; AVA, 2022; CVMA, 2021; NZVA, n.d.; IAABC, 2025; APDTNZ, 2022).

7. Closers

Short, deployable closing lines for podcast, panel, and online formats. Anchor closer: The mechanism is aversive control. The welfare cost is documented. The necessity claim has been tested and has not been supported under best-practice conditions. The international veterinary profession has reached consensus. Twenty-seven enacted jurisdictions have already legislated. The case is in.

8. The Don’ts: Practitioner Mistakes That Derail Force-Free Debaters

• Pursuing the dog-as-anecdote rabbit hole.
• Defending studies on methodology rather than convergence.
• Operant quadrant pedantry without function.
• Conceding professionals can use these tools safely.
• Apologizing or hedging to seem reasonable.
• Letting the proponent pivot from one tool to another.
• Forgetting to name the consensus.
• Engaging tone with tone.
• Accepting the safety-signal framing without naming the inversion.

How to Use This Document

This document contains one hundred statements: fifty defenses of aversive training equipment (electronic collars, prong collars, choke chains) and fifty attacks on force-free, reward-based, positive-reinforcement training. Each statement is paired with a response. The statements are grouped into twelve recurring argument clusters. These clusters do not represent independent lines of evidence. They represent repeated rhetorical strategies used to reframe aversive stimulation, minimize welfare concerns, challenge reward-based training, appeal to emergency safety, and question the validity of the scientific literature. Source attribution is included only when a response cites a specific peer-reviewed study or named institutional position. The Reverse Lookup Index at the end of the document allows lookup by source-document position (Set 1 numbers 1 through 50, Set 2 numbers 1 through 50) for cases where the cluster is not immediately obvious. This document is a companion to the Debate Playbook, intended to compress the time between hearing a statement in conversation and locating the response designed to answer it. The full statement-by-statement content with responses is reproduced in the 100 Statements PDF.

Cluster 1. Communication Reframing and Euphemistic Relabeling

Statements that redefine the function of the tool so it is not perceived as punishment, negative reinforcement, pain, fear, or discomfort. The rhetorical move is to shift language away from shock, correction, aversive, or punishment and toward softer terms such as communication, tapping, attention, information, guidance, cueing, or feedback. The scientific question is not what the trainer calls the stimulus. The question is what contingency makes the behavior change.

Cluster 2. Aversiveness Minimization and Benign-Stimulus Claims

Arguments that concede the tool produces a sensation but minimize its welfare significance. These claims compare electronic collar stimulation to human experiences, imply that the intensity is too low to matter, or use the visible behavior of the dog to claim that no welfare cost is occurring.

Cluster 3. Tool-Neutrality, Misuse, and False Equivalence Arguments

Statements that frame aversive tools as morally and behaviorally neutral. The claim is that the tool itself is not the issue, only improper use. The argument redirects the debate away from mechanism, welfare risk, and population-level harm toward individual trainer competence.

Cluster 4. Four-Quadrant Completeness and Dogs Need No Arguments

Arguments that reward-based training is incomplete because it allegedly uses only one quadrant, while balanced training is framed as more complete because it uses all four quadrants. The argument borrows the vocabulary of operant conditioning but treats the quadrants as if ethical or clinical validity requires using all of them.

Cluster 5. Clarity, Boundary, and Predictability Justifications

Arguments that aversive consequences reduce confusion, create clearer expectations, establish boundaries, or reduce anxiety because the dog knows the rules. The core claim is that aversive feedback is clearer, fairer, or psychologically stabilizing.

Cluster 6. Reinforcer Failure, Competing Motivation, and Cookies Don’t Work Arguments

Arguments that rewards fail when the dog is not food motivated, is over threshold, is highly aroused, or encounters something more valuable than the reinforcer. The cluster has a kernel of truth: poorly selected reinforcers, poor timing, inadequate distance, or working over threshold can absolutely cause reward-based training to fail. That is a failure of training design, not of positive reinforcement as a scientific principle.

Cluster 7. High-Drive, Working-Dog, and Severe-Behavior Exception Arguments

Arguments that reward-based methods may work for easy dogs, puppies, or basic manners, but not for serious dogs, high-drive dogs, protection dogs, police dogs, hunting dogs, aggression cases, or reactivity cases.

Cluster 8. Safety, Survival, Euthanasia, and Harm-Reduction Claims

Claims that aversive tools are necessary to prevent death, injury, surrender, euthanasia, traffic accidents, livestock chasing, wildlife chasing, or loss of off-leash control. These should be treated as empirical claims requiring data, not slogans.

Cluster 9. Practicality, Speed, Generalization, and Compliance Critiques

Arguments that force-free training may work in theory but is too slow, too fragile, too dependent on skilled implementation, or too impractical for ordinary pet parents.

Cluster 10. Mechanical Control, Handler Safety, and Physical Leverage Arguments

Arguments that aversive tools are needed because some dogs are physically too strong, especially for smaller handlers, elderly pet parents, or people with physical limitations. This cluster is about mechanical management of the dog’s body, not necessarily behavior modification.

Cluster 11. Ideology, Identity, and Credibility Attacks on Force-Free Training

Statements that attack the perceived motives, competence, honesty, or ideology of force-free trainers rather than defending a tool. The cluster reframes the debate as practical professionals versus emotional ideologues.

Cluster 12. Evidence Dismissal, Methodological Objections, and Manufactured Uncertainty

Arguments that challenge the evidence base against aversive tools by claiming the studies are flawed, incomplete, biased, or not representative of modern balanced training. The cluster targets the scientific foundation directly.

Back to document menu

Reverse Lookup Index

Lookup by source-document position. Use this when the original statement number is known but the cluster is not. The Reverse Lookup Index covers Set 1 numbers 1 through 50 (Defenses of Aversive Training Equipment) and Set 2 numbers 1 through 50 (Attacks on Force-Free Training).

Set 1. Defenses of Aversive Training Equipment

Set 1 collects the fifty most common pro-aversive defenses encountered in debate, online exchange, podcast, and client conversation. Each statement is paired with a primary response, and where applicable a secondary counter and a source citation. Representative statements include: the e-collar is not a shock collar, it is a modern communication tool; modern e-collars use low-level stimulation, not pain; it feels like a TENS unit or muscle stimulator; most humans can barely feel the working level; the dog decides the working level, not the trainer; the e-collar is just an extension of the leash; it interrupts the dog’s thought process; the prong collar mimics the way dogs correct each other; balanced training builds confidence, not fear; look at the dog, he is happy, confident, and not shut down; balanced training is not abuse, it is using all four quadrants of learning theory. The complete Set 1 with full responses is reproduced in the 100 Statements PDF.

Set 2. Attacks on Force-Free Training

Set 2 collects the fifty most common anti-force-free attacks. Representative statements include: force-free training is not really force-free because a leash, collar, crate, gate, or harness still uses control; force-free training only uses one quadrant of learning theory; balanced training uses all four quadrants, so it is more complete; positive reinforcement teaches what to do, but it does not teach what not to do; dogs need both yes and no; force-free trainers misrepresent e-collars and prong collars; force-free trainers only show the worst examples of tool use; balanced training is mostly positive reinforcement anyway, but with accountability when needed. The complete Set 2 with full responses is reproduced in the 100 Statements PDF.