After reading this study I am left with many concerns. The authors indicate that Ecollars were being used to train a recall on the dogs in Group 1. Further details actually describe using high, aversive levels of stimulation to teach avoidance - not the same thing. Even given these high levels of stimulation, they do not find any "statistically significant" variations in stress levels in the 3 test groups. However, they still conclude that Ecollar cause stress and are bad for animal welfare. It seems to me they are ignoring their own results. They also conclude that Ecollars are not necessary since equal results can be gained using rewards based methods alone. That opinion was based on results of a small number of returned questionnaires that asked subjective questions.

I feel a better study should have larger test groups, and longer evaluations periods. Also, using Ecollars at lower levels than used here would be more in sync with how most trainers currently use these tools. Finally, to assess reliability between test groups, why not simply proof the training? Take dogs from the 3 groups out and recall them off of chasing prey or livestock. It's a simple thing to then objectively measure successes and failures. Some hard numbers would go a long way toward earning credibility in my eyes. I'd be V-E-R-Y surprised to see equal measures of reliability to a rewards based training group around extreme distractions, but I would welcome a study that actually measured a real world performance standard.

I hope Veterinarians and others reading this study look at the details offered. Anyone concerned about animal welfare should be advocating effective training. A well trained dog is the best assurance of good behaviors, and a privileged life for the pet. An Ecollar is just a tool, but one that can be used gently to provide those reliable levels of training. That reflects real animal welfare to me.