There are no plans at present to ban the sale and use of any electronic training aids for animals, including the ‘electric shock collars’. For many years the Protection of Animals Act 1911 made it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a domestic or captive animal. However, the Government is not aware of any prosecutions under the 1911 Act in relation to the use or misuse of electronic training collars.
Just wanted to go over this bit a bit
Wales is now committed to banning the collars completely. It has to be finalised but I believe this is firm, now.
Scots and English governments are awaiting DEFRA study results before doing anything. Personally, I believe this is due to pressure from those who would be financially upset if there was a ban, but anyway...
RE there being no prosecutions under an Act, in relation to shock collars - this is explained very well by David Ryan (police dog handler, police dog instructor, now retired and APBC chair) here (he refers to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as that is the most relevant to this)
http://www.apbc.org.uk/sites/default...nsultation.pdf
see Question 4 and Question 5
".
Question 4:
Do you believe that the provision prohibiting “unnecessary
suffering” in section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is sufficient to
protect animals who wear electric shock or static pulse collars or come
into contact with “scat mats”? If not, why not?
The legislation contained in Sec. 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (causing or
permitting unnecessary suffering to a protected animal) already pertains to
animals that are the subject of electric shock from collars or other devices.
However, it is unlikely that a person committing an offence by activating such
a device will be witnessed in the act, and therefore brought to court. The
offences are, by the nature of the environment in which they are committed,
hidden from public view.
The current law therefore fails to protect animals that
are the victims of electric shock devices.
Although the problem of illegal use would still exist were a ban to be
introduced, the number of devices at large would diminish through natural
wastage and not be replaced at source, thus protecting animals by removing
the devices.
Question 5:
In addition to question 4, under existing law each court case
involving the use of these devices would have to be considered on their
own merits. Do you think that is sufficient or do you believe that legal
certainty via Regulations should be introduced. If so, why?
Page 4
There are several reasons why prosecution of individual cases of causing or
permitting unnecessary suffering through the use of electric shock devices is
insufficient and that regulations to ban them should be introduced.
The first, as stated in question 4, is that the use of electric shock devices is
rarely witnessed by a third party.
Even if the offence is witnessed by an informed third party, the pain caused by
electric shock devices is transient. It may be highly significant at the time it is
administered, but have no lasting observable effects such as trauma injuries.
It is one of the reasons that electric shock is a preferred method of torturing
human beings around the world.
“Suffering” is notoriously difficult to define; Sec 62 of the Act interprets it as:
‘“suffering” means physical or mental suffering and related expressions shall
be construed accordingly”, otherwise put: “suffering means suffering”. It is a
state that we all recognise when we see it, but can be very difficult to describe
in real terms.
Because suffering is subjective, what is inconsequential to one animal may be
devastating to another. The degree of pain felt through each shock is also
variable, dependent upon factors such as skin sensitivity and thickness,
individual pain thresholds, the dog’s motivation at the time, hair length,
contact with skin and wetness of electrical contacts.
Therefore, when a case is prosecuted these uncertainties introduce a
minefield of legal arguments. For example, the only direct evidence is likely to
be that of adversarial witnesses; it may be impossible to establish intensity
settings on devices and what they mean to individual animals; there may be
no observable after-effects to the animal. By producing an apparently loving
owner and a healthy unmarked dog, an offence under Sec 4 of the Animal
Welfare Act 2006 may be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable
doubt. The legal certainty of regulations to prohibit the devices would clarify
the issues.
( I should also mention that shock equipment is recommended for
cats and also for
horses who are cribbing, in spite of much evidence that horses may suffer from various health problems and husbandry which does not take their ethology into account (ie high grain, no grazing, ulcers etc).
Wys
x