Hubbry Logo
Dog collarDog collarMain
Open search
Dog collar
Community hub
Dog collar
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dog collar
Dog collar
Dog collar
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A dog collar is a piece of material put around the neck of a dog. A collar may be used for restraint, identification, fashion, protection, or training (although some aversive training collars are illegal in many countries [1][2]). Identification tags and medical information are often placed on dog collars.[3] Collars are often used in conjunction with a leash for restraining a dog. Collars can be traumatic to the trachea if the dog pulls against the restraint of the leash, causing severe pressure to the neck. Use of a harness instead of a collar may be beneficial for dogs prone to tracheitis or those with a collapsed trachea. Conversely, dog breeds with slender necks or smaller heads may easily slip out of collars that are too loose. This can be avoided by using a martingale dog collar which tightens to distribute pressure around the neck when training the dog not to pull.[4] Any style of dog collar must be properly fitted to ensure safety and collars should not be worn when the dog is unattended.[5]

Basic collars

[edit]
Leather buckle collar with traditional buckle.

Collars are made with a variety of materials, most commonly leather or nylon webbing. Less common materials can include polyester, hemp, metal, or "oilcloth" (vinyl woven with cotton). Collars can be decorated in a variety of ways with a variety of materials. The basic collars for everyday wear are:

  • Buckle collars, also called flat collars,[6] with a buckle similar to a belt buckle, or a quick-release buckle, either of which holds the collar loosely around the dog's neck. Identification is commonly attached to such a collar; it also comes with a loop to which a leash can be fastened. This is the most standard collar for dogs. A flat collar should fit comfortably tight on the dog's neck. It should not be so tight as to choke the dog nor so loose that they can slip out of it. Generally, two fingers should be able to fit underneath the collar.[7]
Nylon quick-release buckle collar with identification and medical tags.
  • Break-away collars look similar to buckle collars, but have a safety mechanism installed that allows the dog to break free of the collar if excessive force is applied. These collars are useful in situations where a non-quick release collar could get snagged and strangle the dog.[8]
  • Safety stretch collars contain an elastic panel in the sturdy nylon collar, which allows escape from potential strangulation dangers such as branches, fences, gates and other dogs. Unlike breakaways, a stretch collar acts like a traditional collar when clipped with a leash.

Special-purpose collars and attachments

[edit]
Kangal dog with wolf collar protecting sheep
  • Stud collars, also called wolf collars, protection collars, or spiked collars depending on the attachments, are collars fitted with metal studs, dulled points, or sharp points that traditionally prevented another animal from biting the dog's neck. Commonly, spikes are hand-set and tightly riveted for extra security. This type of collar dates back to ancient Greece, when dogs protecting livestock were given nail-studded collars to protect them from wolves or other predators. In modern societies, stud collars are more commonly considered a fashion accessory.
  • Reflective collars, usually made with nylon webbing, incorporate reflective tape that ensures that the dog will be seen at night by approaching vehicles.
  • A lighted collar (or collar light, dog light) is a collar that emits light in order to make a dog more visible in the dark to their owners and more importantly, nearby motorists. It is not designed to help a dog see at night, as it is well documented that dogs have very good vision in low light conditions. Most lighted collars utilize one or more light emitting diodes for the light source and can be of virtually any color, although red and blue are most common. Power is provided by one or more batteries, most common types being AAA and lithium coin cells to minimize the added weight to the collar.
  • A flotation collar (or buoyant collar) is a buoyancy aid designed for dogs. Although it is not designed to be used as a life preserver or life jacket, it can provide additional buoyant support for the head of a dog when in the water. It is often used in canine hydrotherapy services to assist in the rehabilitation of injured dogs. The collar may be constructed of closed cell foam material that is inherently buoyant or be of a type that is inflated with air.

Medical collars

[edit]
  • Flea collars are impregnated with chemicals that repel fleas.[9] They are usually a supplementary collar, worn in addition to the conventional buckle collar.
  • Elizabethan collars, shaped like a truncated cone, can be fitted on a dog to prevent it from scratching a wound on its head or neck or licking a wound or infection on its body.[10]

Fashion collars

[edit]

Dog collars are also used to convey the owner's style and have been used as a status symbol. The oldest known fashionable dog collars come from ancient Egypt, dating back to before the earliest of the Pharaohs.[11] Today's fashionable dog collars come in a wide variety of designs, patterns and materials and may include accessories, such as bow ties and flowers.

Training collars

[edit]

Several types of collars are used for the purposes of training dogs, though sometimes a collar is not used at all (such as in the case of dog agility training, where a collar could get caught on equipment and strangle the dog). Each training collar has its own set of advantages and disadvantages (briefly outlined below) which trainers might consider before using a select one. Training collars are typically used for training only and not left on the dog's neck all the time, as some collars can be harmful or dangerous if left on a dog unsupervised.

Flat collars

[edit]

Some dogs are trained on leash using a buckle or quick-release collar.

Martingale collar

[edit]
Martingale Collar with Chain Loop; martingale collars also come with a fabric loop instead of chain as well as optional buckles on both styles.

Martingale collars are recommended for sighthounds because their heads are smaller than their necks and they can often slip out of standard collars. They can, however, be used for any breed of dog. Their no-slip feature has made them a safety standard at many kennels and animal shelters.[citation needed] A martingale collar has 2 loops; the smaller loop is the "control loop" that tightens the larger loop when pulled to prevent dogs from slipping out of the collar. A correctly adjusted martingale does not constrict the dog's neck when pulled taut. Others use them fitted snugly to be able to use them in a similar manner to a choke chain but without the unlimited constriction of a choke chain. The structure allows the collar to be loose and comfortable, but tightens if the dog attempts to back out of it.

Head halters

[edit]
Main article: Halter
The halter-style collar controls the dog's head but does not restrict its ability to pant, drink, or grasp objects.

Head halters, also called head collars, are similar in design to a halter for a horse. They are sold under several brand names. Brands include Comfort Trainer, Canny Collar, Halti, Gentle Leader, and Snoot Loop amongst several others. Brand names are also used when referring to these collars most commonly Halti or Gentle Leader. This device fastens around the back of the neck and over the top of the muzzle, giving more control over a dog's direction and the intensity of pulling on a leash than most collars that fit strictly around the neck. Pressure on this type of collar pulls the dog's nose and consequently their head towards the handler. These types of collars can aid in stopping a strong dog from pulling an owner in an unsafe direction. They are also recommended for dogs that pull as the pressure will no longer be directly on their wind pipe.[12]

The theory behind the utility of head halters is that if you have control of the head, you have control of the body. The head collar generally consists of two loops, one behind the ears and the other over the nose. This tool generally makes it more difficult for the dog to pull on its leash. This is a management tool only, it does not train the dog not to pull.

Controversy

[edit]

Supporters of the head halter say that it enables the handler to control the dog's head, and makes the dog unable to pull using its full strength. They claim it is especially useful with reactive dogs, where control of the dog's head can be a safety issue.[13]

Those who do not recommend use of the head halter say that some dogs find it unnatural and uncomfortable.[14] If the collar is too tight, it may dig too deeply into the skin or the strap around the muzzle may push into the dog's eyes.[citation needed] Cervical injury is a possible result from improper use of the head halter; if a dog is jerked suddenly by the leash attached to the head halter, the dog's nose is pulled sharply to the side, which might result in neck injury. If the nose strap is fitted too tightly, the hair on the muzzle can also be rubbed off, or the dog might paw and scratch at its face, causing injuries ranging from mere bare skin to severe abrasions.

Some head halters such as the Canny Collar attach behind the neck and tighten around the nose when the dog pulls to deter the dog from pulling. Manufacturers claim they are safer than halters that attach below the muzzle because they do not pull the dog's head to one side, avoiding stress on the neck area. Some rear-fastening head halters can have the noseband removed during use, therefore providing an element of training the dog to eventually walk on a regular collar and lead.

Aversive collars

[edit]

Aversive collars use levels of pain to encourage a dog to modify unwanted behaviors.[15] The use of aversive collars is controversial, and the Association of Professional Dog Trainers and the American Veterinary Society for Animal Behavior prohibits their use.[16][17][18] Many European countries have made shock collars illegal.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Some countries have made prong collars illegal,[32][33] and some have made choke collars illegal.[34]

A meta-review of 17 peer-reviewed studies found that "The results show that using aversive training methods (e.g., positive punishment and negative reinforcement) can jeopardize both the physical and mental health of dogs."[35]

Shock collars

[edit]
Main article: Shock collars

Shock collars (also called e-collars, remote training collars, electric collars, zap collars, or hunting collars) consist of a radio receiver attached to a collar with battery and electrodes[36] and a transmitter that the trainer holds. When triggered, the collar delivers the aversive of electrical stimulation to cause pain to the neck of a dog.[37]

Shock collars are illegal in Spain,[38][39][40] Germany,[20][21] Austria,[24] and Denmark,[41] Netherlands,[42] Iceland,[28][29] Norway,[30] Sweden[31][43] Slovenia and Switzerland,[44] Portugal, Wales,[19] the province of Quebec in Canada, some states in Australia, and England.[45]

Shock collars will be banned in Flanders in Belgium after 2027.[46][47][48]

Some shock collar models also include a tone or vibrational setting, as an alternative to or in conjunction with the shock. Early shock collars provided only a single, high-level shock.[49] "Although collar-produced shock can cause acute pain, the painful event does not and cannot produce physical injury".[50] However, meta-studies have shown that they produce stress, cause pain, and damage the relationship between dog and owner.[36] A leash or lead is not attached to a shock collar because it can pull the contacts too close to the dog's skin, causing lessened effectiveness of the collar and additional discomfort.

Prong collars

[edit]
Prong collar; the looped chain limits how tightly the collar can pull in the same way that a Martingale functions.

Prong collars, also called a pinch collar, are a series of metal links that fit together by connecting through blunt prongs that point inward toward the dog's neck. They "train by negative experience, that is inflicting pain".[51] The German Animal Welfare Act goes further, stating that they train by causing "significant pain, suffering or harm to the animal.[52]

Prong collars are illegal in Spain,[38][39][40]Sweden;[53] Austria;[33][54] Switzerland;[55] and Germany,[56][52] as well as Victoria, Australia.[57]

Even in countries where they are legal, some dog training organizations do not allow members to use them.[58][59] "Organizations advocating against the use of prong and choke collars include: CHS, RSPCA UK, RSPCA Australia, RSPCA South Australia, the Canadian Advisory Council on National Shelter Standards, CVMA, ACVB, ABTC, APDT UK, and APDT".[60]

Prong collars can easily injure the thyroid gland, the salivary glands, and the salivary lymph nodes.[58][61]

The design of the prong collar incorporates a chain loop connecting the ends of the prong series, such that it has a limited circumference (a martingale), unlike choke chains, which do not have a limit on how far they can constrict on a dog's neck. The leash attaches to this chain section. There are two options on the prong collar for leash attachment, the dead ring and the live ring. The live ring is used when a dog needs more correction as it gives more slack when the leash is popped. The dead ring is used most commonly when first training a dog to use a prong. The leash is attached to both rings and as such there is not as much slack as when attached to the live ring. This section commonly has a swivel at the point of attachment to lessen the twisting and possible tangling of the leash.[citation needed]

Like the choke chain, the prong collar is placed high on the dog's neck, just behind the ears, at a point where nerve endings are less padded (to cause more pain with less effort by the handler). This is perhaps one of the most misportrayed factors of "proper" prong collar use; the fit and placement of the prong collar are used to make the tool seem like something only used by more knowledgeable people. The collar is designed to prevent the dog from pulling by applying pressure on smaller contact points around the dog's neck as this causes pain. The limited traction of the martingale chain combined with the angle of the prongs prevents the prongs moving close enough to cause injury physically. Unlike flat, martingale, or slip choke collars the prong protects the trachea as a bonus to causing pain. It is used as a brief "corrective" tug which brings the dog's mind back to the handler by making them experience pain.[citation needed]

Prong collars must never be turned inside out (with the prongs facing away from the dog's skin), as this may cause injury against the body and head. Further, one should never use to yank a dog back, choke, or hang/suspend a dog. They are used as "corrective" tools despite dogs having no concept of "good" and "bad". Footage of this collar being actively used typically shows a dog with common signs of pain (ears pointed back, lip licking, raised eyebrows and "stress lines" on the face)[citation needed]

At times, plastic tips are occasionally placed on the ends of the prongs to protect against catching the fur and pulling tufts, or in the case of low-quality collars with rough or chisel-cut ends\, irritating or perhaps puncturing the skin. Its important to examine the tips of the prongs to ensure they are rounded and smooth regardless if they have rubber tips so that they only cause pain and not visible injury.[citation needed]

Force collars

[edit]

Force collars are leather with metal prongs or studs lining the inside; similar in effect to prong collars.

Choke chains

[edit]
Choke chain, showing how the chain pulls through the loop at one end.

Choke chains (also called choke collars, slip chains, check collars, or training collars) are a length of chain with rings at either end such that the collar can be formed into a loop that slips over the dogs head and typically rests around the top of the dog's neck, "designed to administer negative reinforcement and positive punishment.".[62] "When the dog pulls on the lead, the chain tightens around the dog's neck causing pain".[63]

Choke chains are illegal in Spain,[38][39][40] and Switzerland[34] Even where legal, some professional dog training associations prohibit them.[58]

When the leash is attached to the "dead" ring, the collar does not constrict on the dog's neck. When the leash is attached to the "live" ring, the chain slips (adjusts) tighter when pulled and slips looser when tension is released. Training with this leash involves a quick jerk with an immediate release, called a "leash pop", "snap", or "correction" to correct a dog's unwanted behavior through punishment. If force is applied to produce discomfort and then released when the dog complies, this is called "negative reinforcement".[64] Pulling harder or longer on the choke chain presses on the dog's trachea and/or larynx and may restrict breathing.

Fur saver collars are a kind of choke chain that contain fewer and longer individual links than a close link chain, also known as a long link fur saver collar. Fur saver collars can be used both for long and short-haired breeds limiting damage to the dog's fur. It can be used for training and daily use as well. The fur saver collar can be 'locked out' preventing it from constricting by attaching the leash connector to any link within the chain, this mitigates the unlimited traction effect associated with a slip chain.

Humane bark collars

[edit]

There are dog bark collars that use a combination of vibrations and sounds. One peer-reviewer study showed these collars to be effective without causing stress.[65]

See also

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Dog collars.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dog collar

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

A dog collar is a band of material, commonly leather, nylon, or chain, fitted around a dog's neck to enable restraint, identification through attached tags, and connection to a leash for control during walks or training.
Variations include flat buckle collars for general use, slip collars for quick tightening, and prong or martingale designs to prevent pulling or enhance training efficacy.
The earliest empirical evidence of dog collars appears in rock art from the Shuwaymis region of Saudi Arabia, dated approximately 8,000 years ago, indicating their longstanding role in human-canine interaction predating written records.
In ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia and Egypt, collars evolved from simple ropes and leather straps for utilitarian purposes like hunting and guarding, later incorporating metal spikes in Roman-era examples to protect working dogs from predators.
Contemporary controversies center on aversive training collars, including electronic and prong types; peer-reviewed field studies demonstrate their effectiveness in correcting behaviors like poor recall or livestock worrying, though they may induce acute stress indicators, with long-term welfare impacts remaining inconclusive and debated relative to reward-based alternatives.

History

Ancient and Prehistoric Origins

The earliest evidence of dog collars dates to approximately 8000 years ago, based on rock art panels in the Shuwaymis region of present-day Saudi Arabia, which depict hunters accompanied by dogs restrained by leashes attached to their necks, indicating the use of rudimentary collars for control during communal hunts. These petroglyphs represent the transition from free-roaming canids in early human-dog partnerships—following domestication around 15,000–40,000 years prior—to organized restraint tools, likely evolving from simple neck cords to manage pack behavior in prehistoric hunting societies where dogs aided in pursuing game over long distances. No physical prehistoric collar artifacts have survived, with evidence limited to such iconographic representations that suggest functional precursors to later designs, prioritizing utility over adornment in nomadic or semi-nomadic contexts. In ancient , Sumerian communities around 5000 BCE employed basic cord collars tied around dogs' necks primarily for subduing and directing animals used in , guarding, and early urban protection roles, as inferred from textual and artistic records emphasizing dogs' utility alongside deities like the healing goddess Gula. These collars, often wide to distribute pressure and prevent injury during restraint, marked a causal advancement in human-canine , enabling reliable control in agrarian settlements where dogs deterred predators from and stored grains. Archaeological contexts, such as dog burials with amulets, further imply collars facilitated both practical handling and symbolic associations with protection and afterlife beliefs. Ancient Egyptian depictions from around 3500 BCE, including wall paintings showing men walking leashed , demonstrate collars integrated into hunting and companionship practices, with portrayed as familial assets valued for loyalty and utility in Nile Valley ecosystems. By the 18th Dynasty (circa 1570–1400 BCE), collars evolved into ornate artifacts, as evidenced by a surviving example belonging to a dog of , featuring inscriptions and locks that combined restraint with status signaling among elites. This progression reflects empirical adaptations for ergonomic fit—wider bands to mitigate tracheal damage during pulls—grounded in repeated use for , , and guard duties, distinct from mere decorative excess.

Medieval to Industrial Era Developments

During the in , dog collars evolved primarily for functional purposes tied to hunting and guarding, ranging from simple leather bands to more elaborate metal constructions. Archaeological finds, such as a medieval collar from Waterford, , illustrate the use of durable materials suited to working dogs. Hunters fitted larger breeds like mastiffs with iron collars featuring outward-pointing spikes to deter attacks from predators such as wolves, enhancing the dog's defensive capabilities during pursuits. As the period transitioned into the and early , collars began incorporating decorative elements alongside utility, with often embossed or adorned with bells, as depicted in ecclesiastical monuments like Bishop Langham's tomb. By the 16th to 18th centuries, elite ownership led to ornate designs in silver or gold-plated metal, exemplified by the collar of King Louis XI's dog, which featured rubies. These developments reflected shifting social roles for dogs, from mere tools to status symbols among . The in the 18th and 19th centuries marked a shift toward , making collars more accessible beyond through affordable and variants. Innovations included secure padlocks to verify amid rising pet-keeping in urban settings, while personalization with engraved plates or metals like became common. Surviving 18th-century examples, such as those in the Manning Collection dated to 1921 accession records, highlight the era's blend of durability and ornamentation.

20th Century to Modern Innovations

In the mid-20th century, electronic training collars, initially known as shock collars, were developed primarily for training and working dogs over long distances, utilizing static correction to enforce commands. These early devices, emerging in the and , delivered a single high-level stimulation and were adapted from technologies used in remote control. By the 1970s, advancements allowed for smaller, lighter units capable of operating multiple collars in proximity without interference, shifting toward more precise control. Prong collars, patented in the late but refined and popularized in the for obedience , feature metal links with blunt prongs that apply distributed pressure around the neck to mimic a mother's corrective bite, facilitating leash manners and in strong-willed dogs. Their evolved to include quick-release mechanisms and adjustable sizing, enhancing safety and usability during sessions. The late 20th and early 21st centuries introduced quick-release buckles, typically side-release fasteners inspired by seatbelt technology, allowing rapid removal to prevent strangulation if the collar snags on obstacles, a common risk in outdoor environments. Concurrently, synthetic materials like gained prevalence for their durability, affordability, and ease of cleaning compared to traditional , enabling of adjustable, weather-resistant collars suited to companion dogs. In the 2010s, GPS-enabled smart collars emerged, integrating satellite tracking with activity monitors to provide real-time location data, step counts, and health metrics such as sleep patterns and caloric expenditure, transforming collars into multifunctional devices for pet management. These innovations, exemplified by products like activity trackers launched around 2014, allow owners to monitor behavior remotely via smartphone apps, though their accuracy depends on battery life and signal strength. Further developments include vibration and tone options in electronic collars, reducing reliance on static stimulation for positive reinforcement training.

Design and Materials

Common Materials and Construction

Dog collars are commonly constructed from , , or synthetic materials such as biothane, which is a coated designed for durability and water resistance. provides strength and comfort, often sourced from and processed through tanning for flexibility and longevity, while offers affordability and ease of cleaning, typically woven into flat straps of varying widths. Biothane resists and is , making it suitable for active dogs in wet conditions. Construction typically involves attaching hardware components to the strap material via stitching, riveting, or molding. For and biothane collars, or webbing is cut to length, folded over metal or hardware like D-rings for leash attachment and tri-glides for size adjustment, then secured with heavy-duty thread using box-X stitching patterns to prevent slippage under tension. Leather collars are cut from tanned hides, edges beveled and burnished for smoothness, and fastened with saddlery stitches or rivets to integrate buckles and rings, ensuring even distribution of force during use. Hardware includes side-release buckles, often plastic for quick fastening or metal for heavier-duty applications, and welded D-rings made from or to resist and withstand pulling forces up to several hundred pounds. Some designs incorporate padding for added comfort on the dog's neck, sewn between layers of the primary material to reduce chafing without compromising structural integrity. Overall, and construction prioritize safety, with breakaway mechanisms in certain buckles to prevent tracheal injury if the dog pulls sharply.

Sizing, Fit, and Ergonomic Considerations

Proper sizing of dog collars begins with measuring the circumference of the 's neck using a flexible positioned high on the , just behind the ears and jawline, ensuring the tape is snug but allows room for two fingers between it and the skin to account for and movement. This measurement typically corresponds to selecting a collar 2 inches longer than the neck size to permit adjustment for growth or weight fluctuations, with frequent re-measurements recommended for puppies whose necks can expand rapidly during the first year. Size ranges vary by manufacturer but generally include extra-small for necks 8-12 inches, small for 10-14 inches, medium for 14-20 inches, and larger increments thereafter, tailored to breed averages such as 12-16 inches for Beagles or 22-26 inches for Labrador Retrievers. Fit is verified post-adjustment using the two-finger rule, where two fingers should slide comfortably between the collar and , confirming the collar remains secure during activity without restricting , , or causing chafing—deviations risk slippage in loose fits or vascular compression in tight ones. For small breeds under 10 pounds, a one-finger gap may suffice to prevent excessive looseness relative to body size, while larger s benefit from the standard two-finger allowance to distribute contact evenly. Collars should be checked weekly for fit changes due to seasonal fur variations or health-related neck swelling, with immediate loosening if the shows signs of discomfort like pawing or coughing. Ergonomically, collars must prioritize pressure distribution to minimize neck strain during leashed walks, as studies demonstrate that narrower or rigid collars concentrate force on smaller areas, elevating peak pressures up to 200% higher than broader, padded designs and risking tracheal or over time. Materials like or with wider bands (at least 1 inch for medium dogs) reduce localized pressure compared to thin chains, which can exceed 10-15 psi on the during pulls, potentially leading to chronic issues like in susceptible breeds such as Golden Retrievers. Veterinary assessments emphasize avoiding constant tension on the , recommending collars only for identification or light control rather than sustained pulling, with harnesses preferred for high-exertion activities to shift load to the and preserve mobility. For brachycephalic breeds like Bulldogs, ergonomic fit includes softer inner linings to mitigate from folds, ensuring the collar sits flat without pinching.

Basic and Identification Collars

Flat Collars

Flat collars, also termed buckle collars or flat-buckle collars, feature a flat strap of uniform width that loops around a dog's neck and secures via a traditional belt-style buckle or quick-release plastic clasp. These collars typically include D-rings for attaching identification tags, leashes, or rabies vaccination certificates, making them suitable for routine identification and casual lead walking in dogs that do not exhibit strong pulling behavior. Constructed from materials such as nylon webbing, leather, or polyester fabric, they offer adjustability through sliding buckles to accommodate neck growth or fluctuations in a dog's size. Proper fitting requires the collar to allow insertion of two fingers between the strap and the neck, ensuring it remains secure without restricting or circulation; a collar too loose risks slippage, while one too tight can cause discomfort or . Veterinary guidelines emphasize selecting collars sized to fit snugly yet comfortably, with quick-release mechanisms preferred for in emergencies, such as entanglement. For everyday applications, flat collars distribute even across the when the dog walks calmly, avoiding the tightening action of slip or martingale designs. While versatile and durable for low-pull scenarios, flat collars pose risks for dogs prone to lunging or pulling, as the concentrated force on the neck can lead to tracheal collapse, esophageal damage, or thyroid cartilage injury over time. Studies and clinical observations indicate that repeated high-impact pulls on flat collars increase stress on cervical vertebrae and soft tissues, potentially exacerbating behavioral reactivity or causing chronic neck pain; for such dogs, front-clip harnesses are recommended as alternatives to mitigate these physiological stresses. Despite these limitations, flat collars remain the standard for non-training purposes due to their simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and compatibility with accessories like reflective strips for nighttime visibility.

Martingale Collars

A martingale collar, also known as a limited-slip or greyhound collar, features two interconnected loops: a primary adjustable loop that encircles the dog's neck and a secondary control loop attached via a short chain or fabric segment to the primary loop's D-ring. When the dog pulls against the leash, the control loop tightens the primary loop evenly around the neck, preventing the collar from slipping over the head while limiting constriction to avoid full choking, unlike unlimited-slip designs such as choke chains. This mechanism distributes pressure across the neck rather than concentrating it at the throat, making it suitable for dogs with narrow heads relative to their necks, such as sighthounds. The design originated in the context of handling, particularly for greyhounds in racing communities, where traditional collars often failed to secure dogs with slim necks and heads. Anecdotal accounts trace its development to 19th-century British horse tack influences, adapting the martingale strap—used to control a horse's head —into a canine restraint that provides humane leverage without excessive force. By the mid-20th century, it gained popularity among pet owners for everyday walking, as it allows attachment of identification tags like flat collars while adding escape prevention. Martingale collars offer benefits for leash control in dogs prone to backing out of standard collars, providing a baseline level of restraint comparable to flat collars but with added security against evasion. Empirical comparisons indicate they reduce pulling less effectively than front-clip harnesses but impose fewer immediate welfare impacts than prong collars, though they may cause neck discomfort if the dog pulls persistently. A 2024 study of four walking aids found martingales, used as a flat-collar equivalent, resulted in moderate stress indicators like elevated in pulling dogs, underscoring their role as a transitional tool rather than a long-term solution for strong pullers. Proper fitting is critical: the collar should tighten only 1-2 inches when fully engaged, ensuring it contacts the snugly without restricting at rest, and it must be removed when unsupervised to prevent entanglement hazards. Risks include tracheal injury or bruising from improper sizing—too loose allows escape attempts that escalate tightening, while too tight mimics choke effects—and reviews caution against routine use in brachycephalic breeds or dogs with vulnerabilities due to potential discomfort from any tightening mechanism. Veterinary literature emphasizes pairing martingales with positive reinforcement training to minimize reliance on aversive tightening, as evidence shows no superior long-term behavioral outcomes over non-tightening alternatives like harnesses.

Specialized Purpose Collars

Medical and Recovery Collars

Medical and recovery collars, commonly known as Elizabethan collars or E-collars, are protective devices designed to prevent dogs from accessing surgical incisions, wounds, or skin conditions through licking, chewing, or scratching, thereby reducing risks of , dehiscence, or delayed . These collars function by creating a physical barrier around the head and , with the traditional model consisting of a rigid attached to a standard flat collar. Veterinary guidelines emphasize their routine use post-surgery, such as or orthopedic procedures, where self-trauma occurs in a significant portion of untreated cases. A 2020 peer-reviewed study on welfare implications found that E-collars effectively mitigate self-inflicted injuries but can induce behavioral stress indicators in dogs, including reduced activity, impaired feeding efficiency (due to limited and maneuverability), and temporary disruptions in social interactions. The study, involving observational data from clinical settings, noted that while short-term use (typically 7-14 days) is justified by the causal link between and bacterial , prolonged application may elevate levels and anxiety, underscoring the need for monitoring and minimal duration. Hard versions provide the most reliable restriction but are least tolerated, with compliance varying by and ; smaller dogs often adapt better than larger ones due to proportional fit. Alternatives to traditional cones include inflatable collars, which resemble donuts encircling the to limit head flexion without obstructing forward vision, and soft fabric cones made from or for lighter restriction. Recovery suits or sleeves, such as full-body garments covering the , offer non-collar options by directly shielding wounds while allowing greater mobility, though they may fail against determined licking in high-motivation cases like issues. Veterinary assessments indicate inflatable and soft collars reduce stress compared to rigid cones—evidenced by lower avoidance behaviors in user trials—but their efficacy drops for rear-end wounds, with some requiring supplementation by the standard E-collar. Selection depends on wound location and dog size, with larger breeds often needing reinforced designs to prevent evasion.

Fashion and Aesthetic Collars

and aesthetic dog collars emphasize ornamental over primary functional utility, featuring elements like , studs, beads, colorful patterns, and premium finishes to enhance a pet's visual appeal or align with owner . These collars often incorporate materials such as dyed , , , or synthetic fabrics treated for durability while prioritizing style, distinguishing them from plain identification or training variants. Historically, decorative collars emerged as status symbols among , with ancient Mesopotamian depictions showing dogs in straps around 2000 BCE, evolving to include iron, gemstones, and engravings by the in . Medieval examples featured velvet or silk linings and stamped scenes depicting hunts or claims, reflecting owners' rather than canine needs. In modern contexts, the rise of pet humanization has driven luxury integrations, with high-end brands like Gucci, Prada, Fendi, and Tiffany & Co. producing collars from python leather, signature fabrics, or engraved metals, often retailing for hundreds of dollars. Celebrity endorsements amplify trends, such as Lady Gaga outfitting her dog Asia in designer sets or Taylor Swift using branded carriers, fueling demand in pet fashion events like the annual Pet Gala. Market growth underscores this shift, with the global pet collar sector valued at $348.98 million in 2025 and projected to reach $590.48 million by 2035 at a 5.4% CAGR, partly attributed to aesthetic demands amid rising pet ownership and disposable income in urban households. While empirical data on welfare impacts remains limited, these collars typically maintain basic adjustability and breakaway features to mitigate risks, though over-ornamentation can occasionally impede movement if poorly fitted.

Attachments and Accessories

Dog collars commonly feature D-rings, welded metal loops attached to the collar for securing leashes, identification tags, or other accessories, providing a secure attachment point that withstands typical pulling forces up to 1,000 pounds in heavy-duty models. These rings often include swivels to minimize leash twisting during walks. Identification tags, typically engraved metal or plastic plates, attach via the D-ring and include the dog's name, owner's phone number, and address to facilitate return if the animal is lost; veterinary associations recommend them as a primary recovery tool alongside microchips, with studies showing tagged pets 20-30% more likely to be reunited with owners within 24 hours. Breakaway mechanisms, such as plastic clasps that release under 10-20 pounds of pressure, integrate into some collars to prevent strangulation if the dog snags on obstacles, though they can be bypassed with secondary D-rings for leashed use. For visibility, reflective strips or strips woven into the collar material enhance nighttime safety by reflecting vehicle headlights up to 500 feet away, reducing accident risks in low-light conditions per traffic safety analyses of pet gear. GPS trackers, compact battery-powered devices clipped to the collar, provide real-time location via cellular or signals, but no cellular real-time GPS collars exist without monthly fees due to required mobile data subscriptions averaging $5-10 for full functionality, including geofencing alerts and activity monitoring. A popular subscription-free alternative compatible with iPhones is the Apple AirTag inserted into a collar holder or specialized support, leveraging Apple's Find My network via Bluetooth and crowd-sourced location data for precise tracking without any ongoing fees; collars designed with secure, waterproof AirTag pockets are available. Other non-cellular options include Bluetooth trackers like Tile or radio frequency systems such as Garmin Astro or Dogtrace models for hunting, though these have limited range and do not provide unlimited real-time cellular GPS. These trackers complement rather than replace ID tags, as signal loss can occur in remote areas, and empirical data indicates they aid recovery in 70-90% of cases when combined with traditional methods.

Training and Behavioral Control Collars

Head Halters and Gentle Leader Types

Head halters for dogs consist of a strap encircling the neck behind the skull and a loop around the muzzle rostral to the eyes, with the leash attaching to the muzzle loop to redirect head movement. This mechanism leverages the principle that dogs tend to follow their noses, enabling handlers to guide the dog's direction and reduce forward pulling by applying pressure to the nose rather than the neck. Unlike traditional collars, head halters provide mechanical leverage, facilitating control over larger or strong-willed dogs without relying solely on the handler's strength. The Gentle Leader, a prominent brand of head halter, was developed in the early 1980s by veterinary behaviorist Dr. R.K. Anderson in collaboration with obedience trainer Ruth Foster. Designed to mimic natural by applying pressure behind the ears and under the chin, it aims to discourage behaviors like lunging or jumping while promoting calmer walking. Other brands, such as and Canny Collar, operate on similar principles but may vary in strap padding or adjustment mechanisms. Proper fitting is essential, with the neck strap positioned high behind the ears and the nose loop snug but not tight, to avoid slippage or discomfort during use. Empirical studies indicate head halters can effectively reduce leash pulling, with one comparison showing dogs habituated to the device over sessions, exhibiting decreased pawing, head shaking, and rubbing behaviors by the fourth exposure. In welfare assessments, no significant compromise to dog welfare was observed when using head halters versus certain harnesses, though intraocular pressure rises were noted with neck collars but not halters during pulling. Benefits include minimized tracheal pressure compared to choke collars and enhanced handler control for training reactive dogs, potentially preventing escalation of aggressive responses. However, risks exist, including potential soft tissue damage to the or spine from improper jerking, and torque-induced discomfort on the nose or if the resists suddenly. Veterinary orthopedic specialists caution against whiplash-like injuries in high-pull scenarios, recommending gradual introduction and counter-conditioning to build tolerance. While aversiveness decreases with acclimation, some dogs display initial stress indicators, underscoring the need for positive alongside the tool rather than reliance on it alone for long-term . Head halters are thus best suited as temporary aids in structured training programs, not substitutes for addressing underlying behavioral causes.

Aversive and Correction-Based Collars

Aversive and correction-based collars function by introducing an unpleasant stimulus—ranging from mechanical to electrical or sensory discomfort—to decrease the likelihood of unwanted behaviors through positive , where the aversive is added contingent on the behavior, or negative reinforcement, where the aversive is removed upon compliance. These devices target issues like leash pulling, chasing, or excessive barking by associating the stimulus with the action, prompting the dog to avoid it. Types include choke chains, prong collars, electronic collars, and citronella spray collars, each calibrated to varying intensities based on the dog's size and temperament. Choke chains, or slip collars, comprise a looped chain that constricts the neck when tension is applied via the leash, exerting force on the trachea and soft tissues to interrupt pulling or lunging. Historically used in obedience training, they require precise timing to avoid injury, as sudden jerks can damage the larynx or esophagus, particularly in small breeds or dogs with pre-existing neck conditions. A slip lead is a single-piece training tool that combines a leash with an adjustable loop acting as a collar. It is placed over the dog's head, tightening around the neck when the dog pulls to apply gentle pressure—ideally positioned high behind the ears—to discourage pulling and redirect attention to the handler. Pressure releases immediately when the dog yields or stops pulling, providing feedback to encourage loose-leash walking. Usage involves quick tugs, directional changes, or maintaining slack rather than constant tension, with a stopper ensuring the loop does not over-tighten. Prong collars consist of interconnected metal links ending in blunt prongs that press into the dog's skin and muscle upon leash tension, distributing force circumferentially to simulate corrective nips from pack mates. Deployed for strong pullers, they can swiftly reduce leash reactivity when fitted high and behind the ears, though surveys link their use to owner dissatisfaction and potential long-term behavioral issues like heightened fearfulness. Electronic collars, often termed e-collars or shock collars, transmit variable-intensity electrical pulses through skin-contact electrodes to the muscles, enabling remote correction for off-leash scenarios like recall failures. Peer-reviewed trials demonstrate efficacy in halting pursuit behaviors in as few as two 10-minute sessions, outperforming some reward-only methods in speed, yet post-stimulation elevations signal physiological stress responses. Citronella collars activate a spray of irritating oil or a startling upon detecting vocalization or motion, serving as a non-physical aversive for bark control. Assessments indicate superior reduction in territorial barking compared to manual scolding, with most dogs exhibiting only transient mild distress rather than severe fear, positioning it as a lower-intensity option.

Safety, Health, and Welfare Implications

Physiological Risks from Collar Use

Excessive force applied via collars during restraint can lead to tracheal compression or , particularly in small or brachycephalic breeds, where sudden pulls exert pressure exceeding 100-200 N on the , risking mucosal damage or ring deformation. Veterinary case reports document laryngeal, esophageal, and tracheal injuries in dogs subjected to choke chains or prong collars, including hematomas and circumscripta from repeated trauma. Musculoskeletal injuries, such as strains or vertebral subluxations, arise from peak forces up to 300-500 N during pulling episodes, with simulated neck models demonstrating higher localized pressures from narrow collars compared to harnesses. Narrow-band collars amplify shear forces on and intervertebral discs, potentially contributing to chronic or neuropathy in pulling dogs. Vascular and neurological effects include compression of carotid arteries or vagus nerve branches, though empirical data is limited to cadaveric studies showing reduced blood flow under 50-100 N loads; clinical correlations remain anecdotal. Increased intraocular pressure, observed to rise by 20-30% during collar-induced neck flexion, poses risks for glaucomatous dogs, with head halters showing lesser pupillary dilation (2.0% vs. 0.1% for collars). Hypothyroidism linked to collar pressure on the thyroid gland has been hypothesized based on anatomical proximity and trauma models, but lacks robust epidemiological evidence, with most reports deriving from clinical observations rather than controlled trials. Prong and choke collars heighten these risks through punctures or bruising, while flat collars pose minimal threat absent chronic pulling.

Comparative Benefits and Empirical Evidence on Alternatives

Harnesses represent the primary alternative to collars for restraining dogs during walks, distributing pressure across the chest and torso rather than concentrating it on the . This design reduces the risk of tracheal collapse, laryngeal damage, and vascular injuries associated with collar-induced forces, particularly in dogs that pull forcefully. A 2021 study measuring peak forces during simulated pulling found that neck collars transmitted higher localized pressures to the cervical region compared to chest harnesses, supporting the physiological advantage of harnesses in mitigating trauma. Similarly, biomechanical analyses indicate that harnesses alleviate strain on the and , with evidence from canine gait studies showing decreased forelimb extension and shoulder stress when using certain harness configurations versus collars. Empirical data on welfare outcomes, however, reveal nuances: while front-attachment harnesses can redirect pulling via leverage on the chest, back-attachment models often result in sustained or increased tensile forces, as dogs exerted greater steady pull (up to 1.5 times baseline) to reach motivators in controlled trials. A 2024 comparative trial of walking aids, including front-clip harnesses, demonstrated modest reductions in pulling frequency (approximately 20-30% over baseline collars) but highlighted variable efficacy dependent on dog and owner handling, with no universal superiority in preventing reactivity. Behavioral observations in domestic dogs walking on harnesses versus collars showed no significant differences in stress indicators like lip-licking or yawning, suggesting that equipment alone does not inherently improve welfare without concurrent . Other alternatives, such as padded vests or no-equipment loose-leash protocols, lack robust peer-reviewed validation but align with causal principles favoring minimal restraint; preliminary force-vector modeling indicates vests further diffuse loads but may impede natural movement in agile breeds. For brachycephalic or orthopedic-compromised dogs, harnesses yield clearer benefits, with clinical reports documenting fewer episodes during exertion compared to collar use. Overall, evidence prioritizes harnesses for in pull-prone dogs, though long-term studies emphasize integrating aversive-free to address root behavioral drivers rather than relying solely on hardware substitutions.

Efficacy in Training and Behavior Modification

Evidence on Positive Reinforcement Methods

Positive reinforcement methods in dog training entail delivering rewards, such as food treats, toys, or verbal praise, immediately following desired behaviors to increase their future occurrence. Empirical studies demonstrate that these techniques effectively teach obedience commands and reduce problematic behaviors in companion dogs. For instance, a controlled experiment with 92 pet dogs compared reward-based training to aversive methods over six weeks, finding that reward-trained dogs achieved equivalent performance in tasks like sitting, staying, and coming when called, as measured by standardized obedience tests, while displaying fewer stress indicators such as lip-licking, yawning, and avoidance. Conditioned reinforcers, like clicker sounds paired with primary rewards, enhance learning efficiency by providing precise timing feedback. Research reviewing multiple canine studies showed that dogs exposed to acquired novel behaviors, such as targeting or heeling, at rates comparable to or exceeding those using primary reinforcers alone, with transfer of the conditioned stimulus maintaining response rates even after primary rewards were faded. This approach leverages principles, where the marker bridges temporal gaps between action and reward, promoting faster shaping of complex sequences. Welfare outcomes further support positive reinforcement's efficacy, as it correlates with reduced cortisol elevations and fear responses during and post-training. In a prospective study tracking physiological and behavioral metrics, dogs trained via rewards exhibited playful engagement and lower baseline anxiety, contrasting with elevated stress hormones in punishment-exposed groups, without compromising behavioral compliance over time. These findings indicate that positive methods foster durable learning through voluntary participation, minimizing welfare trade-offs associated with coercive tools. Efficiency comparisons among reward variants, including luring, capturing, and shaping, reveal shaping—rewarding successive approximations—as particularly effective for skill-building, with dogs reaching criteria in fewer sessions than luring for behaviors like loose-leash walking. A with working dogs quantified trials-to-criterion, showing reward-based protocols yielded high success rates (over 90%) in real-world applications, such as in distractions, underscoring beyond lab settings.

Evidence on Aversive Conditioning Approaches

Aversive conditioning in employs collars such as prong, choke, and electronic shock devices to deliver physical discomfort or pain as for undesired behaviors, aiming to suppress actions like pulling, barking, or chasing through negative reinforcement or positive punishment. Studies indicate these methods can rapidly reduce specific behaviors; for instance, electronic collars effectively halted lure-chasing in dogs within two 10-minute sessions by administering shocks upon approach to the lure. Similarly, owner surveys following electronic collar use for problem behaviors reported a 92% improvement rate, with no significant efficacy differences compared to reward-based alternatives in self-reported outcomes. However, empirical data consistently link aversive collar use to welfare compromises, including elevated stress indicators. Dogs trained with aversives exhibited higher cortisol levels post-training, more frequent stress-related behaviors like yawning and lip-licking, and increased panting compared to those in positive reinforcement groups. A review of multiple studies found correlations between aversive methods and physical injuries, heightened fear responses, and aggressive tendencies, suggesting punishment-induced avoidance learning may generalize to increased reactivity toward handlers or novel stimuli. Comparative trials highlight trade-offs in long-term efficacy. While electronic collars improved recall compliance during sessions, they required more commands and showed less reliability off-leash without the device compared to reward-based , potentially due to reliance on suppression rather than voluntary compliance. Prong and choke collars have demonstrated short-term pulling reduction in walks, but user dissatisfaction and reports of tracheal damage or neurological issues, including one documented case of severe brain injury leading to , underscore risks outweighing benefits in many contexts. Overall, while achieve behavioral suppression via principles—pairing discomfort with actions to decrease their occurrence—evidence points to suboptimal outcomes for sustained obedience and welfare, with dogs displaying pessimistic cognitive biases indicative of chronic negative emotional states.

Controversies and Debates

Welfare Concerns and Animal Rights Perspectives

Animal rights organizations contend that certain dog collars, particularly aversive types such as prong, choke, and shock variants, inflict physical pain and psychological distress, violating principles of humane treatment. PETA asserts that these devices cause unnecessary suffering by design, with prong collars embedding metal links into the skin and choke collars restricting breathing, and calls for their prohibition in favor of positive reinforcement methods. Similarly, the ASPCA opposes training equipment that induces physical discomfort or undue anxiety, emphasizing that such tools undermine the human-animal bond and promote fear-based responses over voluntary compliance. Peer-reviewed research highlights welfare risks, including elevated stress indicators like increased levels and avoidance behaviors in dogs trained with electronic collars compared to reward-based alternatives. Aversive methods have been linked to long-term behavioral issues, such as heightened aggression or , with studies documenting physiological responses akin to distress in settings. Veterinary evidence reports cases of severe injuries, including tracheal collapse, laryngeal damage, and nerve trauma from improper use of choke and prong collars, potentially leading to or respiratory complications. From an animal rights perspective, collars symbolize human dominance over canine autonomy, restricting natural behaviors like sniffing or free movement during walks, which contributes to welfare deficits such as from curtailed exercise or exacerbated fear responses. Organizations like the warn of , infections, and from prong collars, advocating harnesses to distribute pressure away from the sensitive neck area. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) positions aversive collars as unnecessary and detrimental, citing evidence that they compromise welfare without superior outcomes to force-free techniques, and recommends their avoidance to prevent fallout behaviors like redirected . These views have influenced legislative efforts, with bans on shock collars enacted in regions like parts of since 2007 and ongoing campaigns against prong and choke devices in veterinary and policy circles.

Effectiveness Debates and Empirical Critiques

Debates surrounding the effectiveness of dog collars, particularly aversive types such as prong, choke, slip, and electronic collars, center on their ability to rapidly suppress unwanted behaviors like leash pulling or chasing compared to positive alternatives, which prioritize rewards without physical corrections. Proponents argue that collars provide immediate feedback mimicking natural canine communication, leading to quicker compliance in high-drive dogs or severe cases, as evidenced by controlled trials showing reduced pulling with prong-style collars comparable to head halters, though user satisfaction varies. Critics contend that such tools primarily elicit avoidance through discomfort rather than genuine behavioral understanding, potentially fostering or redirected aggression, with empirical reviews indicating aversive methods correlate with elevated stress behaviors and levels during and post-training. Empirical studies on electronic collars demonstrate efficacy in modifying specific behaviors, such as halting lure-chasing in working dogs, where shock application ceased the action within two 10-minute sessions per dog, outperforming food-reward protocols that failed to suppress the response in the same timeframe. Similarly, remote electronic collar training has been linked to successful outcomes in preventing for behavioral issues by enabling control in resource-limited settings, though long-term retention requires consistent handler skill. For choke and slip collars, evidence suggests they can tighten to signal corrections effectively for manners when fitted properly, simulating pack mate nips, but improper use risks tracheal damage and inconsistent results, with owner surveys reporting lower satisfaction linked to physical strain on dogs. Critiques highlight methodological limitations in pro-aversive research, often conducted by trainers with tool affiliations, while welfare-oriented studies—predominant in veterinary and behavioral journals—consistently report negative emotional states, including pessimism in tasks and heightened panting or tense postures in dogs trained aversively. Aversive collar efficacy may wane without , as suppressed behaviors can resurface under stress, contrasting with positive methods that build enduring associations, though the latter demand more time investment; no large-scale conclusively favors one paradigm across all contexts, underscoring the interplay of dog , handler expertise, and severity. Sources critiquing collars often stem from academic institutions emphasizing welfare, potentially underrepresenting practical successes in field applications like police or dogs, where rapid results justify trade-offs absent in contexts. Electronic shock collars, also known as e-collars, are banned for use in training dogs in multiple European countries, including , , , , , , , and , primarily due to concerns over potential impacts. In the , prohibited their use in 2010, followed by implementing a nationwide ban effective , 2024. extended restrictions in January 2023 to prohibit collars that "strangle" or cause pain, encompassing choke chains, prong collars, and shock devices on companion animals. Outside , in and parts of , such as Victoria and , have enacted bans on prong collars, reflecting a pattern where such measures often stem from advocacy by organizations emphasizing avoidance of perceived aversive stimuli. In the United States, no federal bans aversive collars, allowing their sale and use subject to local ordinances, though some municipalities impose restrictions based on cruelty statutes; for instance, prong and shock collars remain widely available through retailers despite voluntary discontinuations by chains like . These divergences highlight jurisdictional priorities: European bans frequently cite empirical studies linking aversive tools to stress indicators in dogs, such as elevated levels, while U.S. approaches prioritize trainer discretion absent conclusive mandates. Enforcement varies, with penalties in banned regions ranging from fines to equipment confiscation, though compliance relies on veterinary reporting and public awareness rather than widespread policing. Culturally, dog collars have served protective roles beyond restraint, particularly in pastoral societies where spiked or "wolf" collars prevent throat injuries from predators during livestock guarding. Originating in ancient Greece around the 5th century BCE, these collars featured outward-pointing spikes to deter wolf bites, as evidenced by Athenian ceramics and marble reliefs depicting guardian dogs. In modern Turkey, breeds like the Kangal wear similar spiked collars during sheep herding to safeguard against wolf attacks, a practice rooted in folk traditions requiring dogs to prove maturity through prior encounters before fitting. Roman artifacts further confirm their use in guarding flocks, underscoring a utilitarian adaptation where collar design directly counters causal threats from apex predators in rural ecosystems. Such variations contrast with urban Western contexts, where collars emphasize identification or training, but in livestock-dependent regions like parts of or historical , they integrate with breeds selected for confrontation, reducing inter-dog aggression via spike deterrence without relying on electronic or punitive mechanisms. These traditional applications persist where empirical needs—predator and herd —outweigh modern welfare debates, illustrating how shapes collar utility independent of regulatory frameworks.

References

  1. https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/training/dog-harness-vs-collar/
  2. https://images.akc.org/pdf/cgc/GK9GC2.pdf
  3. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1605/a-brief-history-of-the-dog-collar/
  4. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1603/dogs--their-collars-in-ancient-rome/
  5. https://neonmoonpetboutique.com/blogs/news/the-hidden-story-of-dog-collars-from-ancient-egypt-to-modern-times
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4153538/
  7. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.00508/full
  8. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225023
  9. https://www.shopmimigreen.com/when-were-dog-collars-invented/
  10. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1175/dogs--their-collars-in-ancient-mesopotamia/
  11. https://hiro-and-wolf.com/blogs/dog-blog/the-history-of-the-dog-collar
  12. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1385/dogs--their-collars-in-the-middle-ages/
  13. https://alternativedog.honeysrealdogfood.com/a-brief-history-of-dog-collars/
  14. http://graceelliot-author.blogspot.com/2014/02/dog-collars-short-history.html
  15. https://sparkypus.com/2020/05/14/the-medieval-doggie-and-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-them-2/
  16. https://www.sladeczech.com/news/the-history-of-dog-collars
  17. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1730/dogs--their-collars-in-the-age-of-enlightenment/
  18. https://petiquettecollars.co.uk/how-dog-collars-have-changed-over-time/
  19. https://britisharchaeology.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/east-oxford/ob-dog-collars.html
  20. https://lionheartk9.com/dog-training-collars/
  21. https://www.educatorcollars.com/blog/evolution-of-remote-dog-training-collars
  22. https://quailforever.org/BlogLanding/Blogs/Quail-Forever/The-History-and-Evolution-of-the-E-Collar.aspx?feed=articles
  23. https://www.facebook.com/thirdwaycanine/posts/lets-talk-about-the-prong-collar-facts-not-emotionsthe-prong-or-pinch-collar-was/2599673566710473/
  24. https://hermsprengerusa.com/blogs/news/de-mystifying-the-training-prong-collar
  25. https://www.sparkpaws.com/blogs/community/what-is-a-quick-release-collar
  26. https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/care/gps-trackers-and-smart-collars-for-dogs/
  27. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201411/smart-collars-monitor-your-dogs-activity-and-health
  28. https://dogtra.com/blogs/news/e-collar-technology-from-shock-collar-to-remote-trainer
  29. https://www.rayallen.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-dog-collars
  30. https://auburndirect.com/this-is-how-to-choose-the-best-dog-collar-material/
  31. https://2houndsdesign.com/blogs/blog/nylon-leather-dog-collar
  32. https://pawtronicgpsfence.com/blogs/news/choosing-the-right-materials-for-your-custom-pet-collar
  33. https://countrybrookdesign.com/how-to/collars/how-to-make-a-dog-collar
  34. https://thebetterbone.com/blogs/news/the-basics-of-dog-collar-hardware-understanding-your-options
  35. https://www.4blackpaws.com/pages/hardware-options
  36. https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/lifestyle/choosing-right-dog-collar/
  37. https://www.pethardware.com/en/collar-buckles/
  38. https://www.vividcanine.com/blogs/vivid-canine-unleashed/how-to-measure-perfect-dog-collar-fit
  39. https://hermsprengerusa.com/blogs/news/sizing-de-mystified-how-to-determine-the-correct-collar-size-for-your-dog
  40. https://bestiespets.com/en-ca/blogs/news/how-to-choose-the-right-dog-collar-sizehow-to-choose-the-right-dog-collar-size-a-complete-guide-for-pet-parents
  41. https://www.sparkpaws.com/blogs/community/how-tight-should-a-dog-collar-be
  42. https://www.coastalpet.com/sizing-guide
  43. https://migrou.com/blogs/migrou-daily/the-importance-of-properly-fitting-dog-collars-and-leashes
  44. https://www.askthedogguy.com/2-finger-rule-dog-collars/
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7386734/
  46. https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/collar-and-harness-options-for-dogs
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12345489/
  48. https://www.harlemworldmagazine.com/tips-for-selecting-comfortable-dog-collars-at-dog-friendly-co-that-your-pet-will-love/
  49. https://veterinarypartner.vin.com/doc/?id=9937765&pid=19239
  50. https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/care/collars-harnesses-leashes-muzzles/the-safest-types-of-dog-collars-and-the-most-dangerous/
  51. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/as/as-564-w.pdf
  52. https://www.petscare.com/news/faq/what-collar-do-dog-trainers-recommend
  53. https://pawsomedogsports.com/blogs/dog-training-tips/flat-dog-collar-guide-use-safety-tips
  54. https://www.carecredit.com/well-u/pet-care/how-to-choose-dog-collar/
  55. https://www.petscare.com/news/faq/what-is-a-martingale-dog-collar
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11512810/
  57. https://www.dogids.com/blog/types-of-martingale-collars-a-comparison-for-pet-owners/
  58. https://jenniferrpovey.com/about-martingale-collars/
  59. https://www.dogids.com/blog/why-dog-owners-are-switching-over-to-martingale-collars/
  60. https://blog.theartfulcanine.com/martingale-collar-safety-rules/
  61. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/15/15/2162
  62. https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/elizabethan-collars-in-dogs
  63. https://www.petmd.com/dog/general-health/cone-of-shame-what-it-is-and-cone-alternatives
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7070745/
  65. https://www.preventivevet.com/cone-alternatives-for-dogs
  66. https://www.petmd.com/vet-verified/best-recovery-collars-cones-dogs
  67. https://www.hunterpetuk.co.uk/blogs/pawsitive-vibes-blog/aesthetics-of-dog-collars-designs
  68. https://frenchbullevard.com/dog-fashion-clothing/dog-clothing-history/
  69. https://lovedog.com/style-design/the-history-of-dog-fashion/
  70. https://www.prettyfluffy.com/trends-shopping/editors-picks/14-luxury-dog-collars-by-high-end-brands-that-might-surprise-you
  71. https://www.tiffany.com/home-accessories/pet-accessories/
  72. https://bitchnewyork.com/pages/new-celebrity-lookbook
  73. https://www.factmr.com/report/pet-collar-market
  74. https://www.petage.com/high-fashion-pet-lovers-are-excited-over-luxury-pet-apparel/
  75. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-gps-pet-trackers/
  76. https://foxvalleydogcollars.com/products/breakaway-reflective-quick-release-martingale-dog-collar
  77. https://www.amazon.com/Taglory-Reflective-D-Rings-Locking-Adjustable/dp/B0F66JTXVC
  78. https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-pet-trackers-and-gps-dog-collars
  79. https://www.pethub.com/articles/2953315/gps-dog-trackers-everything-you-need-to-know
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-four-head-halters-used-during-the-study-clockwise-from-top-left-Snoot-Loop-1_fig1_248335847
  81. https://bestfriends.org/pet-care-resources/dog-head-halters
  82. https://nitrocanine.com/the-head-halter-torture-pain-and-nonsense-explained/
  83. https://www.dvm360.com/view/rk-anderson-revolutionary-behaviorist-and-inventor-gentle-leader-dies-90
  84. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/22/science/new-collar-curbs-dogs-with-memories-of-mom.html
  85. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/09/garden/a-leash-that-may-be-more-humane.html
  86. https://paws4udogs.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/busting-myths-about-the-gentle-leader/
  87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248335847_Comparison_of_dogs%27_reactions_to_four_different_head_collars
  88. https://www.simpawtico-training.com/dont-use-a-head-halter/
  89. https://suzanneclothier.com/article/problem-head-halters/
  90. https://www.highfiveanimaltraining.com/blog/why-i-dont-recommend-head-halters-for-dogs
  91. https://www.preventivevet.com/dogs/dog-training-aversives
  92. https://longhaultrekkers.com/aversive-tools-in-dog-training/
  93. https://www.ellevetsciences.com/blog/are-choke-collars-bad-for-dogs/
  94. https://4knines.com/blogs/4knines-blog-home-page/the-risks-of-using-choke-chain-or-prong-collars-on-your-dog
  95. https://felcana.com/blogs/blog/slip-leads-for-dogs
  96. https://www.upstatecanine.com/blog/understanding-the-use-of-prong-collar-in-dog-training/
  97. https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenDogTraining/comments/1feuboc/new_study_out_on_stopping_chasing_behaviour_in/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3658554/
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159101001460
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8450523/
  101. https://vetmed.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Dangers-of-Training-Collars.pdf
  102. https://heatstroke.dog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/final-canine-collars-an-investigation-of-collar-type-and-the-forces-applied-to-a-simulated-neck-model.pdf
  103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32303668/
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1558787824000893
  105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7168135_Effects_of_the_Application_of_Neck_Pressure_by_a_Collar_or_Harness_on_Intraocular_Pressure_in_Dogs
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159198001130
  107. https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/care/collars-harnesses-leashes-muzzles/can-a-collar-damage-a-dogs-thyroid/
  108. https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/262/7/javma.23.11.0608.xml
  109. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10888705.2023.2259796
  110. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383990799_The_Influence_of_Harness_Design_on_Forelimb_Biomechanics_in_Pet_Dogs
  111. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.735680/full
  112. https://pure.hartpury.ac.uk/files/8600755/The_behavioral_effects_of_walking_on_a_collar_and_harness_in_domestic_dogs.pdf
  113. https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/vetr.1627
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7743949/
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7600771/
  116. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97743-0
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7895348/
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1558787817300357
  119. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/18/2632
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159117302095
  121. https://www.ava.com.au/policy-advocacy/policies/companion-animals-dog-behaviour/use-of-behaviour-modifying-collars-on-dogs/
  122. https://www.peta.org/features/no-prong-choke-shock-collars/
  123. https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-training-aids-and-methods
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S155878781300004X
  125. https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/dogs/training/prongcollars
  126. https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3474565/
  128. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39465149/
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11428818/
  130. https://calmenergydogtraining.com/2012/04/dog-collar-round-up-part-iii-slipchoke-and-prong-collars/
  131. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/canine-corner/202301/does-it-matter-whether-dog-training-is-positive-or-aversive
  132. https://www.facebook.com/TheMuttMaster1111/posts/countries-that-have-outlawed-the-use-of-shock-collars-include-austria-denmark-ge/1071611054980269/
  133. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fellow-creatures/202304/england-moves-to-ban-electric-shock-collars-for-dogs
  134. https://veganfta.com/articles/2023/01/28/france-bans-collars-that-cause-pain-to-companion-animals/
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11083790/
  136. https://www.usadogbehavior.com/blog/2023-12-27-worldwide-debate-on-shock-and-prong-collars-where-are-they-banned-and-why
  137. https://iacpdogs.org/2025/08/18/%25F0%259F%258C%258D-tracking-legislation-worldwide/?no-cache
  138. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAVRU_1Pnsz/?hl=en
  139. https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/06/23/wolf-collar/
  140. https://x.com/archeohistories/status/1838687839862821218
  141. https://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2010/05/Usingdogstohelpprote.htm
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.