It was published by the government - on a government website I'm pretty sure. It was a report of the findings of the study/consultation/review/whatever. Surely they came back to you with the findings ?

It didn't say an awful lot more than the government response that I've quoted. Just a bit more detail but not much.

And to confirm your suspicion. The report did not specifically say 50/50 - that's my way of saying the report said that was opinion was split and that it was not possible to make a decision either way based upon opinion. It's extremely likely that there were more 'for' or more 'against' but the majority wasn't considered big enough to be significant.

So from what you've said I don't think my recollection of the report is different from what you understand the findings to be.

The experts consulted were split 50/50 with half favoring the devices and half wanting a ban.

And I'm willing to take in good faith your claim that there were more against than for - I won't insist that you publish your cupboard full of info (or your inside information)!

It's tricky because often we're not clear in discussion whether we're putting across our opinion or interpretation of something or whether it's actual hard fact. I'm sure none of us mean to misslead and it's good that we pick each other up on these things.

We both want clarity and facts. Opinion is good too but I agree it's important to be clear about which is which and I apologise for any lack of clarity on my part! I hope it's clear now.

...Rather than just be black and white about it I prefer to look deeper and find out WHY it's working so well for some - is it possible it could work for me? Are they using something that's different from the devices that deliver pain and cause stress?

E-collar/e-fence covers quite a range of devices. Strictly speaking we already use an e-collar - a GPS tracking collar!

... doesn't it worry you a bit that so many people are talking in absolutes about "all e-collars are cruel" when really very many people aren't up-to-date on what's available nowadays? It's possible that a lot of the disagreement simply comes down to lack of information about what's really available.

I hope this study throws light on all of these grey areas!

e-collar is short for electric collar. A GPS tracking collar is a type of electric collar. The manufacturers of ours have referred to it as an e-collar when talking on the phone.

e-fence is short for electric fence. I believe the way it works is that the fence is simply a wire that closes a circuit. The electricity is in the collar itself (the e-collar). When the collar is in close proximity to the wire fence it will react according to the type of e-collar it is. If the e-collar has been made in such a way that it vibrates then it will vibrate. If it's been made in such a way that it sprays it will spray. If it's been made to deliver a shock it will deliver a shock.

I don't *THINK* the current study includes e-fences (can anyone confirm). Just training collars. But hopefully the findings will help people make informed decisions about a range of training devices.

Some think that spray collars or vibrating collars shouldn't be banned but shock collars should. I'm sure others will think that any type of device should be banned. Others again will probably be happy for devices that deliver a mild, tickly static shock but not those that can be turned up to deliver pain.

We need precise info and findings of scientific studies. I think a knee jerk reaction against 'e-collars' and 'e-fences' is counter productive when we aren't clear about what various people are talking about when they refer to these things.

A good study will be clear about this kind of thing.

We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ban Electric Shock Collars."

Details of petiton:

"To make illegal the manufacture, sale, importation and use of electric shock collar devices on dogs for any purpose."

* Read the petition
* Petitions home page

Read the Government’s response

The Government recognises that many people are concerned about electric shock collar training devices and their potential for misuse, particularly collars operated by remote hand-held controls. It is equally aware there are others who are convinced that they have a place in training animals where other methods have failed and the alternative might be worse - possibly destruction of the animal in some rare cases. There is also conflicting evidence from people professionally involved with the training and behaviour of animals as to whether these aids are effective and whether they have a harmful impact on an animal’s welfare.

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.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA), which became law on 6 April in England (on 27 March in Wales), repealed and replaced the 1911 Act. The AWA provides additional powers to prohibit or ban the use of any equipment in England and Wales in relation to animals through secondary legislation if considered necessary. It also allows a prosecution to be brought where an animal, although not currently suffering, is being treated in a way that fails to meet its welfare needs.

While we are aware of a number of scientific studies on electric shock collars, Defra considers that to date those studies published in this area are not sufficiently robust and that the evidence base needs to be built on before consideration can be given to either banning or regulating their use. The government is not prepared to do this unless there is clear evidence that these devices in themselves are harmful to welfare.

Defra has recognised that further research into these types of collars is a priority and has sought to set up a suitable study. Following an unsuccessful Open Competition Call in August 2005, Defra reconsidered its position and, in July 2006, circulated a revised call for research, this time in the form of a Limited Tender Call. The call invited proposals for studies to assess the effect of specific electronic pet training aids (excluding electric fences) on the welfare of dogs. The call encouraged an epidemiological approach, which is one based on observation of collars already in use. One proposal was received in response to the call and this is currently under discussion with a view to commissioning a suitable programme of research later this year.

Defra has also asked the Companion Animal Welfare Council, advisory body to government on companion animal welfare matters, to undertake an independent study of available evidence on the use of these electronic training aids to help inform Defra policy and complement any separate research that Defra may commission.

All research into these areas commissioned by government will be put into the public domain.

Further information on the Animal Welfare Act 2006 can be found on the Defra website (new window).

Dogs: Electric Shock Equipment

Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research evidence was reviewed by his Department on the use of electric shock training devices for dogs prior to commissioning further research. [209150]

13 Jun 2008 : Column 533W

Jonathan Shaw: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18 Mar 2008, Official Report, column 945W.Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make an assessment of the animal welfare consequences of the use of electric shock (a) collars, (b) mats and (c) leads in training dogs. [209515]

Use of electronic shock collars and training devices

Our position

333. We understand from Defra that it believes the current scientific evidence with respect to these devices to be ambiguous and therefore considers it is not in a position to prepare proposals either to regulate or ban them. Defra has told us it is considering the feasibility of undertaking a research project into the devices, as a matter of priority. If electronic shock collars and perimeter fence devices have indeed been in use in the UK for 13 years now, as one submitter claimed, then we are surprised that Defra has not yet undertaken sufficient research into these devices in order to have formed an opinion of them, particularly given the controversy surrounding their use. We urge Defra to undertake a process of consultation and research about the possible regulation of these devices as soon as possible.

334. At this stage, it seems to us that an appropriate approach to electronic shock collars and perimeter fence devices would be to outlaw their use for purposes of training except, perhaps, with the exception of suitably licensed veterinarians. On the basis of the evidence we have received, we do not oppose the use of these devices to contain dogs within a particular area without the need for fences. However, we emphasise that this is very much a preliminary view; we would certainly seek to hear further evidence on this issue before taking a view on any future draft regulations seeking to control this area.

I can understand in a way, but it is important to acknowledge that use of shock (or stim as advocates like to call it) does hurt and this is why the dog behaves as required. It has to hurt "enough", do you see what I mean?
If it was literally a tickle, it would not contain dogs. It could not

Peeps aren't referring to anything other than actual shock collars, though. Vibration, spray etc is not the same as a shock collar, and I don't know of anyone who would put them in the same league. I wouldn't

Yes, it's good to know about products but many are brand new. If there is only a vibration collar (not a shock collar on a vib. setting) then that is new.

I am looking forward to it, but suspect it will not give huge guidance, only a few suggestions, and each side will use it to their advantage. However, we shall see!

Well, that's one of the things I want to learn more about before forming an opinion. One might assume this to be the case but I'm hearing a lot of things that make me wonder.

As I said before, an aquantence let me feel the shock that her dogs received - I felt it on my throat and it was just a tickling sensation. Definitely NOT pain.

I've quoted the lady that claims to use an electric fence system that uses only a vibrating collar and she claims it worked within days and has never failed in four years.

I have no first hand experience of spray collars, training discs etc but people claim that they work. If you can train a dog not to do something simply by vibrating, spraying, making a sound then why not through use of a very low level static stimulation? I'm not saying it's possible - just that there is lots to suggest to me that it might well be possible.



The thread is about electric fences. Some people thought that they are the same thing as electric stock fences - in fact the opening poster actually asked if this was the case. I'm sure some people are thinking strictly about shock collars when answering questions about electric fences but others mean stock fences and yet others will include vibrating/spraying/whatever fences!

I'm just trying to clarify things. Some types of electric fence are fine according to many here? It's just the ones that inflict pain that are bad? If a shock collar that gave a mild static shock (tickle) did work then that would be acceptable?



Well there are specifically vibration collars available. A friend uses one for a deaf dog for recall purposes. If the lady I quoted earlier is correct then it would seem that electronic fence systems can indeed be effective without the need to shock the dog. In which case the mild 'tickle' that I felt (which I wouldn't consider to be any worse than a vibration) might well be effective too.

I simply don't know. These are all unanswered questions in my mind. Reasons why I'm not yet in a position to form an opinion.



I think the most valuable thing will be a balanced representation of available info from an unbiased study group. For those of us that don't have firm opinions and just want information to help us make informed decisions that is very valuable. Currently you tend to find that information sources are very polarized. People might quote references until they are blue in the face but if it's only references that support THEIR viewpoint then it's not much help. What we need is someone that's looked at all the available evidence to present the current knowledge and opinion.

DEFRA has been referring to "electric shock collars" not GPS devices or purely vibrating or spraying collars. Can you indicate where DEFRA have referred to any other collars in reference to the proposed study, or where any government spokesperson has referred to banning them? Or have you just brought them to the discussion to cloud the issue of electric shock collars?

I would definitely be interested to hear how these work - I'm struggling to work it out. I can't find any vibration only boundary fence things on sale either. Do you know where your lady got hers from?

I would definitely be interested to hear how these work - I'm struggling to work it out. I can't find any vibration only boundary fence things on sale either. Do you know where your lady got hers from?