beta

You're viewing our new website - find out more

Publication - Research Publication

Consultation on potential controls or prohibition of electronic training aids

Published: 14 Sep 2016
Part of:
Research
ISBN:
9781786523198

Consultation analysis on electronic training aids for pets, dogs and cats.

83 page PDF

1.1MB

83 page PDF

1.1MB

Contents
Consultation on potential controls or prohibition of electronic training aids
Summary findings

83 page PDF

1.1MB

Summary findings

The main body of this report has presented a question-by-question analysis of the answers given by the 1,032 individual and group respondents who contributed to this consultation. Not only did a substantial number of respondents make a submission, but there was also a consistently high response rate across the quantitative questions. The proportion of respondents making further comments was also high at most questions.

Taking all answers together, it was clear that respondents tended to approach the consultation from one of two very different starting points - that electronic training aids are effective and can allow some animals to lead happier lives or that they are harmful if not cruel and far better training approaches are available. As would be expected, respondents overall position on the issue tended to be reflected in their answers across the consultation.

Although no single question acts as a clear proxy, answers at Questions 5 and 6 (which cover whether there should be a ban and if so of which devices), suggest that respondents were relatively evenly divided between those supportive of electronic training aids and those opposed to their use. Certain categories of respondent very clearly tended to one side of the argument or the other. In particular, animal care and animal welfare respondents clearly tended to be opposed to the use of electronic training aids. Pet supplies respondents and owners of working dogs clearly tended to be supportive of their use. The largest single category of respondents - pet owners - was relatively evenly divided on the issue.

Respondents who broadly supported the use of electronic training aids very often drew on personal experience of using electronic training aids, either with their own pets or when working with other people's animals. The majority of these respondents appeared to be referring to using remote training collars, although there were also references to anti-bark collars and boundary fence systems. The comments on boundary fence systems included references to both cats and dogs.

Overall, respondents who supported the use of electronic training aids were likely to make one or more of the following points:

  • The use of electronic training aids, including both collars and boundary fence systems, can bring very real benefits to animals that might otherwise have led very restricted lives, or for which euthanasia would have been a likely option. This may include animals for which other training methods had not worked.
  • They may be particularly effective for specific types of dogs, including some working dog breeds, which have a very strong instinct to chase other animals and which may not respond to other training cues. Deaf or blind dogs may benefit from the use of vibration collars. Those making this latter point included some respondents who were otherwise very strongly opposed to the use of electronic training aids.
  • Particularly based on personal experience, there is no evidence that animals suffer when electronic training aids are used correctly. Most of those who use electronic training aids use them properly. Anything can be open to misuse but there is no particular association with electronic training aids - if someone is determined to abuse an animal they will find a way to be cruel or neglectful.
  • The existing legislation is sufficient to protect animals. It is clear that causing unnecessary suffering to an animal - whether with an electronic training aid or by any other means - is against the law. Enforcing the existing law would be more effective in protecting animals than adding further legislation or regulations. Any statutory controls should be focused on the quality and specification of the devices available.
  • The most effective way to address any issues would be through further education. Training or licensing could be either encouraged or required. One option could be devices only being available under supervision and/or after training from a licensed or regulated practitioner. There may also be a case for some form of code or guidance.

Respondents who opposed the use of some or all electronic training aids tended to voice very particular concerns about the use of static pulse devices. As with those who supported the use of the aids, many of the respondents drew on their own experiences as pet owners or of working with animals. They were likely to make one or more of the following points:

  • Using electronic training aids is harmful and/or cruel. In addition to immediate pain or distress, they may cause anxiety-related behaviours, lead to dogs shutting down psychologically, lead to dogs re-directing any aggression at other dogs or people and can cause physical injuries.
  • There is no need to use training methods which are punishment-based and dependent on inflicting pain or creating fear. This approach suppresses behaviour without addressing its underlying cause or the motivation behind it. The electronic training aids themselves are very difficult to use correctly. There are much more effective and humane positive reinforcement training methods available.
  • The existing animal welfare legislation is not sufficient to protect animals, not least because it does not prevent the use of static pulse collars. The 'unnecessary' suffering referenced in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 is a subjective concept which is potentially difficult to prove.
  • Electronic training aids should be banned, and in particular any devices with a static pulse function should be banned. Any regulations would be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce and only a ban would offer sufficient protection to animals. Although a ban is highly preferable, if the Scottish Government does not introduce a ban then strict regulations might at least offer some protection to animals.
  • With specific reference to vibration collars, there may be occasions when they could be permitted for use. Suggestions included all vibration collars being acceptable if regulated, through to vibration collars only being acceptable under certain circumstances, such as if all other approaches have failed and euthanasia is the only alternative, or for deaf dogs.

In conclusion, therefore, the respondents to this consultation were divided on whether the Scottish Government should take action in this area. Broadly speaking, one group thought that little, if any, change is required. Others called for a ban of the use of electronic training aids in Scotland and of static pulse devices in particular.


Contact

Email: Graeme Beale, socialresearch@gov.scot