A Critical Evaluation of Johnson and Wynne’s (2024) Methodology in “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs”

This paper critically examines the methodology and conclusions of Johnson and Wynne’s (2024) study, “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs,” published in Animals (14, 2632). Despite citing a well-established positive reinforcement protocol in stopping chasing behavior in dogs by Bangura (2024), Johnson and Wynne’s implementation markedly diverged from empirically supported methods, resulting in methodological confounds that invalidate their claims of low efficacy for non-aversive approaches. The present critique synthesizes peer-reviewed research, professional standards, and foundational learning principles to demonstrate that the misapplication of recommended procedures, inadequate reinforcement strategies, and poorly controlled variables produced artificially inflated success rates for e-collar training. Furthermore, the analysis reveals significant concerns regarding experimental design, welfare measures, and data interpretation that cast doubt on the reliability and ethical defensibility of the study’s conclusions. References are drawn from current, high-caliber sources to reinforce that properly executed positive reinforcement techniques can effectively curb high-drive chasing behaviors without resorting to punitive measures.