“Remote-controlled devices are operated by the owner/handler and are used to stop unwanted behaviour such as chasing livestock. The owner or handler has a remote device which can trigger an electronic pulse (similar to a static pulse which can be varied in strength) or which can emit a noxious spray…”
“(3) The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include– (a) whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was incompliance with any relevant enactment or anyrelevant provisions of a licence or code of practiceissued under an enactment; (c) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as– (i) the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii) the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d) whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e) whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person. (4) Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of ananimal in an appropriate and humane manner.”
“(1) A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice. (2) For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shallbe taken to include– (a) its need for a suitable environment, (b) its need for a suitable diet, (c) its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviourpatterns, (d) any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, otheranimals, and (e) its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injuryand disease. … (4) Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of ananimal in an appropriate and humane manner.”
“Regulations to promote welfare (1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority thinks fit for the purposeof promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible, or the progeny of such animals. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power under sub-section (1), regulation under that subsection may, in particular- (a) make provision imposing specific requirements for the purpose of securing that the needs of animals are met; (b) … (3) Power to make regulations under subsection (1) includes power- (a) To provide that breach of a provision of the regulations is an offence; … (4) Power to make regulations under subsection (1) does not include power to create an offence triable on indictment or punishable with- (a) Imprisonment for a term exceeding 51 weeks, or (b) A fine exceeding level 5 on the standard scale … (6) Before making regulations under subsection (1), theappropriate national authority shall consult such personsappearing to the authority to represent any interestsconcerned as the authority considers appropriate. …”
“ While research showed no evidence that e-collars cause long-term harm to dog welfare when used appropriately, Defra wants to ensure electric dog collars are used properly and manufactured to a high standard. We will work with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association to draw up guidance for dog owners and trainers advising how to use e-collars properly and to develop a manufacturers’ charter to make sure any e-collars on sale are made to high standards. A ban on e-collars could not be justified because theresearch provided no evidence that e-collars pose a significantrisk to dog welfare. For a ban to be introduced there would have to be evidence showing they were harmful to the longterm welfare of dogs.”
“Training dogs is important to help them learn to behave appropriately and to make it easier to keep them under control. … An incorrect training regime can have negative impacts on your dog’s welfare. Reward-based training which includes the use of things that dogs like or want (e.g. toys, food and praise) is enjoyable for your dog and is widely regarded as the preferred form of training dogs. Training which includes physical punishment may cause pain, suffering and distress. These techniques can compromise dog welfare, lead to aggressive responses and worsen the problems they aim to address.”
“… I understand the strong feelings that some people have about the use of these training devices and we are aware of the Scottish Government’s recent announcement, intending to ban their use. Before introducing a blanket ban on their use however, the Government would need to be satisfied that such aban was in the public interest and could be supported from ananimal welfare point of view. In 2013, Defra published research it had commissioned on the use of electronic training aids for dogs. The findings provide evidence that electronic aids can have a negative impact on the welfare of some dogs, but not all. The evidence from thestudies was not strong enough to support a ban on the devicesunder theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 . The claim that electronic training aids may be no more effective than other training methods is not in itself a reason to introduce a ban or to impose restrictions on their use. Having said that, our advice is thatelectronic training aids should only be used as a last resort andon the recommendation of a professional such as a vet, asuitably qualified dog behaviourist, or a dog trainer, andshould only be used by competent operators. We have updated the statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs (made under theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 ), and strengthened the form of wording on the use of negative training methods. The draft code, which is currently before Parliament, makes it clear that any training method which includes physical punishment may cause pain, suffering and distress and could lead to aggressive responses and worsen the problems they aim to address.”
“Between 2011 and the beginning of 2018 there was continuing interest from animal welfare organisations and ECMA in the state of Government policy on e-collars. Officials and Ministers responded to correspondence to the effect that there were no proposals to ban the use of e-collars but that the Code had been updated and referred to training which causes pain and distress.”
“16. In February 2018 Ministers indicated that they wished to consider a ban on e-collars and sought the advice of officials. On21 February 2018 , officials provided advice setting out four options: (i) amend the statutory dog welfare code to ban e-collar use; (ii) introduce a Statutory Instrument (SI) to ban e-collar use; (iii) consider a hybrid approach (i.e. introduce an SI but via the lighter process applying to updating a welfare code); and (iv) introduce an SI to ban e-collars sales and imports. 17. The four options reflect various combinations of changes to the statutory welfare code and to legislation itself. Having read the paper and considered the options, Ministers decided to choose option (ii). 18. Before a public consultation on a proposal to ban ecollars could begin, Defra first needed to gain approval from the Social Reform (Home Affairs) sub-Committee (a Cabinet Committee). This “write-round” took place between 22 and27 February 2018 . On1 March 2018 the Chair of the Social Reform (Home Affairs) sub-Committee approved Defra to consult widely (for a period of 6½ weeks) on a proposal to ban the use of all e-collars.”
“Defra considers that in general whilst research evidence in a particular area may not have changed since the last time a policy position was presented, the views and attitudes of societytowards that area to which the research pertains may change. For example, the research may indicate that a risk of harm exists in a particular situation. Whilst that risk itself might not change over time, society’s attitude towards and acceptance ofthat risk might evolve and become less accepting. It islegitimate for views on the desirable policy which relates tothat research to evolve over time in line with the changingviews and attitudes of society, and for a consultation to informwhat, if any, changes to the policy should be. In this instance, the research referred to as AW1402 and AW1402A identified some adverse effects on the welfare of dogs from the use of electronic collars in some circumstances. The position of Ministers was initially that this evidence did not support a ban on the use of these devices. However, havingtaken into account the current views of society towards animalwelfare in relation to this particular area, Ministers considered that there was a case for a change in policy subject to the outcome of the public consultation.”
“Scotland has recently announced plans to issue Scottish government guidance which highlights the welfare effects of ecollars and clarifies what offences may apply in relation to their use.”
“In light of growing concerns regarding the use and potentialmisuse of e-collars in England, and in order to protect thewelfare of cats and dogs, we wish to ban their use here byintroducing regulations under theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 . ...”
“We are proposing right now to make it an offence to use an ecollar or even to put one on a cat or dog, or be in charge of a cat or dog that is wearing one. This will dry up sales of thesepunitive devices. We will consider all consultation responses carefully and want to hear views about what these proposals will mean for the sale and retailers of e-collars and whether any further restrictions will be required beyond what the government is proposing in order to deliver our objective to end their use.”
“Defra-funded research published in 2014 [i.e. Lincoln 2 report] showed that e-collars can have a detrimental welfare effect on dogs and can cause harm and suffering. The research also showed that many owners did not read the manufacturers’ instructions prior to use. Many animal welfare organisations, veterinary representative groups, the Kennel Club and many dog trainers and behaviourists are opposed to the use of ecollars, not just on account of the harm they can cause, but also because they are a negative form of training. Many consider that dog should only be trained with positive reward methods (e.g. offering morsels of food to encourage correct behaviour). Many consider that negative forms of training which inflicts some form of punishment do not necessarily work, can be counter-productive and can cause the dog to exhibit other problems or dangerous behaviour. It has also been suggested that e-collars might have a beneficial impact for example in preventing dangerous and harmful behaviour by dogs which are out of control, and that e- collars might be a last resort measure for poorly behaved dogs which would otherwise be put down. Relatively little evidencehas been provided to support the suggestions, althoughevidence about the harm e-collars inflict on pets has beengrowing. Weighing up the evidence which has been emerging about the impact of e-collars, and taking account of public concerns thatwe should treat all our pet animals with appropriate rewardand respect, Defra has concluded that the time is now right to adopt a legal ban on the use of e-collars in England. This would bring the law in England into line with the law in Wales where they are already banned. Users and manufacturers of e-collars argue that when used correctly they might enable difficult dogs that do not respond to more traditional positive reward training to be trained and controlled. They also argue that containment systems can keep cats and dogs within a defined area where alternative methods are not realistically possible, for the benefit of their safety and also to prevent unwanted behaviours occurring in other places.”
“If Defra proceed with such a legal ban, the statutory dog and cat codes in England would be amended to align them with the regulations banning the use of e-collars after the adoption. In addition the statutory dog and cat codes could be amended to align them with the language on e-collars proposed by Scotland in their government guidance.”
“As a consequence of the proposed ban on the use of e-collars we expect that pet owners and handlers will instead use other means of managing their pet’s behaviours. Businesses which supply and manufacture e-collars may experience a reduction in profits. However we would expect a rise in demand from the suppliers and manufacturers of other pet training aids and implements. The suppliers and manufacturers of e-collars themselves may consider whether to focus on other markets where these devices can still be used.”
“We would welcome comments on the proposal to introduce anoffence to attach an e-collar to a cat or dog, to cause an ecollar to be attached to a cat or dog, or to be responsible for a cat or dog which has an e-collar attached. Please feel free to comment on all aspects of the proposals including the expected impacts.”
“@RSPCA_official dog welfare expert Samantha Gaines gives her views on the purposed [sic] ban on [hashtag] ElectronicTrainingCollars. “These cruel devices are used to train and control cats and dogs using pain and fear. Not only is this unacceptable but they are also unnecessary to achieve long-term behavioural change.””
“We are delighted that the Government has announced a consultation on banning the use of electronic shock collars” @ DogsTrust Dr Rachel Casey shares her views. “We are delighted that the Government has announced a consultation on banning the use of electronic shock collars. This decision is a major step towards improving dog welfare.”
“We are delighted that the Government has announced a consultation on banning the use of electronic shock collars. This decision is a major step towards improving dog welfare.”
“It is illustrative of the Government’s confusion over animal welfare issues at the moment that it is reluctant to act on a real and evidenced animal welfare issue like sheep worrying, but ready to legislate on electric collars where evidence suggests at most a marginal welfare problem. Worse than that a ban on electric collars and boundary fences could see more sheep attacked and more dogs shot or euthanised.”
“T.S. Eliot said “When a cat adopts you “you just have” to put up with it and wait until the wind changes”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising both cat welfare and invoking the spirit of T.S. Eliot. At the beginning of “The Waste Land”, T. S. Eliot wrote: “April is the cruellest month”
“Michael Gove is preparing to drop plans for a total ban on electric shock collars for cats and dogs, allowing them to be used to prevent pets from straying on to roads. In a carefully scripted exchange with John Hayes, a former transport minister who uses collars on his cats, Mr Gove indicated that he would limit the ban to collars used as training devices and exempt those used to contain animals.”
“ There were 7,334 responses to the consultation. Overall, 64% were opposed to a ban on e-collars and 36% were in favour of a ban. Many of the respondents who did not want to see e- collars banned considered it important that the collars are used properly in line with the manufacturers’ instructions; many such respondents felt it is important that all users receive professional training prior to using e-collars. A small percentage of respondents wanted to see a regulatory scheme for using e-collars. Some wanted to see the hand-held remote devices banned but the containment systems permitted and regulated. Most of those against a ban questioned why the Government’s stance had changed given that no new major evidence to support a ban has emerged recently. Most of those who support a ban considered that the devices are by necessity cruel (a negative form of reinforcement), and that there are long-term negative effects from e-collars. There were objections in principle to using pain or the threat of pain in modern society to steer behaviours when more positive techniques are available and work well. Supporters of containment systems argue that the only alternative is to erect physical fencing which in many cases is not practical or not as effective cats are particularly difficult to contain, and also difficult to train. A ban on containment systems would therefore generate other new risks of harm to pets from them straying especially onto public roads.”
“We consider that there is an animal welfare justification for banning hand-held remote controlled e-collar training devices. There is sufficient evidence that these devices can generateavoidable pain and suffering especially when not usedproperly. There are also other, more positive, means of training pets which may achieve the same or better behavioural outcomes. There are also ethical reasons to ban e-collars, in the sense that it is wrong in principle to use pain or the threat of pain better to steer behaviours. However a legislative ban under theAnimalWelfare Act 2006 would need to be based solely onanimal welfare grounds. We consider that the animal welfare justification for banning invisible fencing containment systems is less clear. …”
“Hand-electronic training (the e-collars) are punitive devices which enable electronic static pulses to be applied to pets by their owners. In light of growing concerns regarding the use and potential misuse of hand-held e-collars in England, and in order to protect the welfare of cats and dogs, we wish to ban the use by introducing regulations under the Animal Welfare 2006. …”
“Cruel electric shock collars for pets to be banned Cruel electronic training, which are used for dogs and cats are to be banned under new legislation, the Government has announced today. Remote controlled electronic training (e-collars) have a remote device that triggers an electronic pulse, which can be varied in strength, whilst others may spray a noxious chemical. As well as being misused to inflict unnecessary harm and suffering, there is also evidence e-collars can re-direct aggression or generate anxiety - based behaviour in pets-making underlying behavioural and health problems worse. The action follows a public consultation on a proposed ban for all e-collars. However, after listening closely to the views of pet owners and respondents, the Government will not extend the ban to invisible fencing systems which can keep pets away from roads and potential traffic accidents. … Secretary of State Michael Gove said: We are a nation of animal lovers and the use of punitive shock collars cause harm and suffering to our pets. This ban will improve the welfare of animals and I urge pet owners to instead use positive rewards. ... A considerable number of responses, whether supportive of a total ban or supportive of invisible fencing, also expressed concern at the number of people who use the hand-held devices incorrectly and without proper training.”
“The government has decided that it will proceed towards a ban on the use of remote controlled hand-held e-collar devices for dogs and cats in England. The government accepts that, where this is necessary as a last resort to prevent other serious risk of harm, there is an argument for retaining the ability to use invisible fencing containment systems for cats and dogs subject to them being set up and used properly, and these will not be subject to the prohibition at this stage. The government’s decision is based on the concern that hand-held remote controlled devices can be all too easily open toabuse and can be harmful for animal welfare. In addition to information received as part of the consultation exercise, Defra’s funded research in 2014 [the Lincoln research] showed that many users of the hand-held devices were not using them properly in compliance with the manufacturers’ instructions leading to welfare problems for the dogs. In many cases alternative positive reward training can be used to encourage and to correct a dog’s behaviour. The government willtherefore bring forward secondary legislation, to be madeunder theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 , to ban the use of hand-heldremote controlled e-collars devices. The government considers that, when installed and set up properly for the cat or dog and for the premises in question, and when proper training is provided, the adverse animal welfare impact of invisible fencing containment fences can be minimised and at the same time these systems can avert other risks to animal welfare. For example these systems can play a role in preventing a cat or dog from wandering into a potentially dangerous environment. When appropriate training is provided, cats and dogs should quickly learn to understand the boundaries without being regularly subject to electronic pulses.”
“Overall this project has highlighted very variable outcomes between individual dogs when trained using e-collars. The combination of differences in individual dog’s perception of stimuli, different stimulus strength and characteristics from collars of different brands [and other differences] are likely to lead to a wide range of training experiences for pet dogs. Owners reported a number of differences in immediate response to application of training device between e-collars and other devices, including the cessation of on-going activity, but also a relatively high frequency of vocalisations on first and subsequent applications of the e-collar stimuli. Owners of dogs in the e-collar group were more likely to have used the device for recall or chasing problems, and more likely to rate their dog’s behaviour as severe than those in the control population. This may suggest that the e-collar dogs may constitute a harder to train sub-population of dogs, though there was no evidence of differences in ease of training or other population differences found in these dogs, from questionnaire or baseline behavioural data… … Significant differences were, however, found in data collected from e-collar and control dogs undergoing standard training tests with and without dummy e-collars. These included a difference in the change in salivary cortisol between tests. Ecollar dogs showed an increase in this measure in comparison to control dogs trained using largely positive reinforcement approaches. There were also behavioural changes between these two tests that were consistent with changes in emotional state. E-collar dogs showed an increase in a composite behavioural score which incorporated duration of time tense, inverse of duration of time relaxed, and duration of time attentive to owner, whoever was conducting the training, when compared with all controls (and also when just compared with the positive reinforcement sub-population). These training tasks were designed to replicate the context where e-collar training had occurred in the past, and indicate a shift towards higher levels of physiological and behavioural arousal in the ecollar dogs. These findings suggest that the experience of a stimulus is sufficiently aversive in at least a proportion of dogs for them to experience negative emotions when trained in the situation which may predict collar use.”
“Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the previous use of e-collars in training is associated with behavioural and physiological responses that are consistent with negative emotional states. It is therefore suggested that the use of ecollars in training pet dogs leads to a negative impact onwelfare, at least in a proportion of animals trained using thistechnique.”
“In previous defra funded work (AW1402) there was evidence that experience of e-collars had long-term negative welfare consequences in some dogs from the pet community. However, the retrospective nature of this previous work meant it was not possible to establish a causal relationship. In this study we sought to overcome this limitation and also examine industry recommended practice concerning the use of e-collars in the field.… this study focused on the welfare consequences of use of the collars within industry recommended training protocols compared with reward based training.”
“The results of this study show that both the trainers’ general approach and the tools they use in training affect the dog’s emotional responses to training. It would therefore be of value to further investigate the welfare consequences of the skill levels of e-collar operator as well as the tools they use. Nevertheless the study did find behavioural evidence that use ofe-collars negatively impacted on the welfare of some dogsduring training even when training was conducted byprofessional trainers using relatively benign trainingprogrammes advised by e-collar advocates.”
“… this study shows that even with best practice as advocated by collar manufacturers and trainers, there were differences in the behaviour of dogs that are consistent with more negative emotional states (including anxiety and aversion) in some dogs trained with e-collars, that these differences persist for the duration of the initial training period, and that there is some evidence of elevated arousal upon the later return to the training situations by these dogs. Further, the results indicate that there is no statistical significant not clinically relevantdifferences in the efficacy of an e-collar training protocolcombined with rewards and a reward-based program that doesnot use an e-collar for the management of dogs presented withcomparable levels of livestock chasing, which is one of the mostcommonly advocated justifications for the necessity of e-collartraining. The findings of this study are however confined to the specific application of the training protocols investigated, namely the use of positive reward-based training of a recall task, compared with additional use of e-collar training, as advocated by industry representative bodies.”
“Our results indicate that the immediate effects of training with an e-collar give rise to behavioural signs of distress in pet dogs, particularly when used at high settings. Furthermore, whilst best practice as advocated by collar manufacturers mediates the behavioural and physiological indicators of poor welfare detected in the preliminary study, there are still behavioural differences that are consistent with a more negative experience for dogs trained with e-collars, although there was no evidence of physiological disturbance. E-collar training did not result in a substantially superior response to training in comparison to similarly experienced trainers who do not use e-collars to improve recall and control chasing behaviour. Accordingly, it seems that the routine use of ecollars even in accordance with best practice (as suggested by collar manufacturers) presents a risk to the well-being of pet dogs. The scale of this risk would be expected to be increased when practice falls outside of this ideal.”
“Further I am clear that if a ban is introduced (even if it is subsequently set aside) the long-term adverse economic effects of such a ban on our products’ reputation in the market and sales both in the UK and elsewhere could last for many years. ...”
“Particular training devices that the Scottish Government doesnot condone are: electronic shock (static pulse) collars, electronic anti-bark collars, electronic containment systems or any other method to inflict physical punishment or negative reinforcement. This includes the use of any device that squirts oils such as citronella or other noxious chemicals that interfere with a dog’s acute sense of smell, or emits any other aversive stimulus. These techniques compromise dog welfare, as they may lead to aggressive responses and worsen the problems that they aim to address to address by masking or aggravating underlying behavioural issues. This guidance is advisory and may provide an aid to both dog owners and those involved in the enforcement of theAnimal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 . Those responsible for enforcement of the 2006 Act may refer to the guidance when issuing advice, warning letters or care notices under the 2006 Act. A Court may, at its discretion, consider the guidance in aprosecution under Section 19 orSection 24 of the AnimalHealth and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 .”
“the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament”
“Sometimes, particularly when statute does not limit the subject of the requisite consultation to the preferred option, fairness will require that interested persons be consulted not only upon the preferred option but also upon arguable yet discarded alternative options.”
“39. In order for the consultation to achieve that objective, it must fulfil certain minimum requirements. Meaningful public participation in this particular decision-making process, in a context with which the general public cannot be expected to be familiar, requires that the consultees should be provided not only with information about the draft scheme, but also with anoutline of the realistic alternatives, and an indication of themain reasons for the authority's adoption of the draft scheme. … 40. That is not to say that a duty to consult invariably requires the provision of information about options which have been rejected. The matter may be made clear, one way or the other, by the terms of the relevant statutory provisions, as it was in R (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts (2012) 126 BMLR 134 . To the extent that the issue is left open by the relevant statutory provisions, the question will generally be whether, in the particular context, the provision of such information is necessary in order for the consultees to express meaningful views on the proposal. … In the present case … it is difficult to see how ordinary members of the public could express an intelligent view on the proposed scheme, so as to participate in a meaningful way in the decision-making process, unless they had an idea of how the loss of income by the local authority might otherwise be replaced or absorbed. 41. Nor does a requirement to provide information about other options mean that there must be a detailed discussion of the alternatives or of the reasons for their rejection. The consultation required in the present context is in respect of the draft scheme, not the rejected alternatives; and it is important, not least in the context of a public consultation exercise, that the consultation documents should be clear and understandable, and therefore should not be unduly complex orlengthy. Nevertheless, enough must be said about realistic alternatives, and the reasons for the local authority's preferred choice, to enable the consultees to make an intelligent response in respect of the scheme on which their views are sought.”
“(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. (2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
“Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.”
“The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants;… Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.”